Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA (PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS)

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any advice has been sought by the Emperor of Ethiopia from His Majesty's diplomatic representatives in that country in the matter of the appointment of Provincial Governors?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, the Emperor has not sought advice on this matter.

Mr. Price: Will the Foreign Secretary consider giving such advice in view of the great importance of proper appointments to the Provinces in Ethiopia, having regard to the internal conditions in the country?

Mr. Law: I am sure that His Majesty's representative at Addis Ababa will bear every consideration in mind and will give such advice as may be appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (SUPPLIES)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether we have maintained the supplies that we agreed upon to Russia; can he make a statement on the problem of supplies to Russia; and whether he will give an assurance that it will be possible to increase the supplies if required?

Mr. Law: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir." As my honourable Friend is aware, an agreement was recently signed in Washington between the Governments of the United States of America, the U.S.S.R. and the United Kingdom, confirming arrangements already in force for the supply to the Soviet Union of military equipment, munitions and raw materials in accordance with their needs.

Mr. Smith: In cases where the equipment is urgently required, can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that all possible steps will be taken in order to speed up deliveries?

Mr. Law: Everything possible will be done.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the hon. Gentleman say that there is no truth in the rumour which is going right through the length and breadth of Britain, in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, that we have fallen behind in our supplies to Russia during the last few months?

Mr. Law: The facts are as I have stated in the answer.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the quantities of munitions which this country has undertaken to supply to the Soviet Government are expressed in the numbers delivered to the quayside here or those actually unshipped in Russian ports?

Mr. Law: The undertakings relate to quantities delivered at British ports, but we have undertaken, in so far as Soviet ships are not available, to lift these supplies, to provide the necessary British ships.

Mr. Simmonds: Am I right in thinking from my hon. Friend's reply that we are under no formal obligation to replace those munitions which may be lost between British and Russian ports, and that those losses can in no way be regarded as a failure on our part to fulfil our obligations?

Mr. Law: I do not think I can answer that question offhand, but certainly the loss of these ships could not be regarded as in any way a failure on our part to fulfil our obligations.

Mr. George Griffiths: Why these sinister questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RIGHTS)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps will be taken to give effect to the decision of His Majesty's Government to relinquish extra-territorial rights in China?

Mr. Law: As the House is aware, simultaneous statements were issued by His Majesty's Government and by the United States Government on 9th October on this question. His Majesty's Government have informed the Chinese Government that they hope in the near future to open discussions with the Chinese Government and to present for their consideration a draft treaty for the immediate relinquishment of extra-territorial rights and privileges in China.

Mr. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very great satisfaction this step has given, both in this country and throughout the world?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the contemplated renunciation of British rights in China includes also the transference of Hong Kong back to the Chinese nation?

Mr. Law: No, Sir. The proposed agreement with the Chinese Government relates only to the surrender of extra-territorial rights in Chinese territory.

Mr. Sorensen: Seeing that the renouncement or relinquishing of extra-territorial rights in China has already created a great impression, would it not create a further great impression if we renounced our treaty position in Hong Kong?

Mr. Law: That is another problem, which has nothing to do with the declaration made in Washington and London the other day.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are not the people in Hong Kong very loyal to the British Empire?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CRIMINALS (PUNISHMENT)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed United National Commission to deal with the problem of war criminals will be empowered to collect evidence about and indict such Nazi leaders as Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and Himmler?

Mr. Law: The proposed United Nations Commission for the investigation of war crimes is intended to be a fact-finding body. As such its function would be to record the evidence submitted to it by the Governments concerned against all individuals responsible, whether as ringleaders or as actual perpetrators, for the commission of atrocities. It will be open to the Governments concerned to submit to the Commission any such evidence against the persons so responsible whoever they may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINCE PAUL OF YUGOSLAVIA

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the surveillance to which Prince Paul of Yugoslavia is being subjected, as a political prisoner, in Kenya?

Mr. Law: Prince Paul of Yugoslavia is required to live in a house set aside for his use by the Government of Kenya. There is a police guard and he is under the surveillance of an administrative officer who is resident in the house.

Captain Gunningham-Reid: Can my hon. Friend say whether the wife of Prince Paul is also a political prisoner, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Law: That is another question.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that this Prince is being treated quite differently from any ordinary British or German subject?

Mr. Law: He is being treated as a political prisoner normally would be.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Executive Council

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Chinese Foreign Minister for the setting-up of an executive council of the United Nations; and whether this proposal is receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Law: No such proposal has been received by His Majesty's Government.


I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to a speech made by Dr. T. V. Soong in New York on nth October, in which he is reported to have advocated the establishment of an executive council of the United Nations to facilitate cooperation between the United Nations both during and after the war. His Majesty's Government are, of course, always prepared to give full consideration to any proposal which they may receive from an Allied Government.

Mr. Boothby: Before taking any further action would His Majesty's Government require to be approached officially in the matter by the Chinese Government, or can they take action merely on that speech?

Mr. Law: I do not think His Majesty's Government can take action on the report of a speech in a newspaper.

Leaders' Conferences

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister when the last meeting of those leaders of the United Nations located in Britain was held; and whether it is proposed that these meetings shall take place at regular intervals in the future?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The last Allied Conference was held on 13th January, 1942. Like earlier meetings it was held for a specific purpose, and further meetings will doubtless be arranged as occasion requires. It would not be desirable to hold formal meetings at stated intervals.

Sir T. Moore: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if these meetings were regularly held, it would not only promote co-operation in the war effort but might well lay the foundation for lasting peace in post-war Europe?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that it would be useful to hold these meetings at the moment.

Supreme War Council

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet come to a decision with regard to establishing a supreme War Council of the United Nations?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to add to

what has already been said in reply to Questions on this subject.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 8th September, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, my right hon. Friend stated that he would probably deal with the subject in his speech later in the day and that he made no such reference in that speech; and does he not think that, in view of recent statements which have come from abroad, it would be very wise to have some co-ordinating effort for both our war strategy and our victory?

Mr. Attlee: That would seem to confirm the answer I have given that the Prime Minister has nothing to add to what has already been said on the question.

Strategy and Production (Co-ordination)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of setting-up an Allied general staff in London to co-ordinate strategy and to secure effective co-operation between the Allied Governments in the field of production?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to add to previous statements about arrangements for the co-ordination of Allied strategy and production which have been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government; except that the arrangements already made both in London and Washington for the co-ordination of production are being constantly developed and improved.

Mr. Boothby: Do his Majesty's Government really think that the present machinery for co-ordinating strategy is adequate for the requirements of a global war?

Major C S. Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend consider co-ordinating first, inter-Service strategy before he goes into this wider problem?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Billeting Alowances

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for Air the billeting allowances for those who are billeted in private houses, and whether this is uniform throughout the country?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The rates of billeting allowances for airmen were set out in full in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) on 18th March last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The rates for officers, which cover accommodation only, are 3s. a night for the first officer and 2s. a night for each additional officer. All rates are uniform throughout the country.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I am having complaints from the part of Lancashire from which I come that the rates are not uniform—that they are higher in Blackpool than in other parts? Will he examine the question, because I believe the rates are rather too low at the present time and that there ought to be some revision?

Captain Balfour: I am glad the hon. Member has drawn my attention to this particular point regarding Blackpool. I will inform him of the details of that aspect of the question. The rates are settled for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and therefore this is an inter-Services matter.

Mr. Tinker: I meant all the Services. I put this Question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because of the case which came to my notice.

Sir H. Williams: Do not most of the inhabitants of Lancashire pay more for accommodation in Blackpool than they do in Leigh?

Dependants' Allowances

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements exist regarding allowances to dependent mothers of airmen; and whether these are entirely of a voluntary character?

Captain Balfour: An airman may claim dependant's allowance to assist him in maintaining the contributions which he made towards the support of his mother before joining the Forces. The arrangements are fully set out in Air Ministry Order A.1082/1941 of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Air Efficiency Award

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air

Efficiency Award is equal in status to the Efficiency Decoration awarded in the Army; and whether recipients of the Air Efficiency Award are entitled to add the letters A.E.A. to their names as in the case of the T.D.?

Captain Balfour: As it is of more recent creation, the Air Efficiency Award will be worn after the Efficiency Decoration. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Etherton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take steps to remove this inequality, so that officers and men can use the letters A.E.A after their names or alternatively the letters T.D., in the same way as Army officers do?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. If the Government were once to start on the slippery slope of allowing the holders of medals not awarded for gallantry to use initials after their names the practice would become so common as to be scarcely worth any distinction at all. There is the Royal Naval Auxiliary Sick Berth Reserves Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, and there is the Board of Trade Rocket Apparatus Volunteer Long Service Medal. For these the appropriate initials would be R.N.A.S., S.B., L.S. and G.C.M. and B.T.R.A.L.S.M., and I think the hon. Member would see that for holders of these medals to have these long strings of initials after their names would not be really very suitable.

Mr. Etherton: While appreciating the humour of what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, may I ask whether it would not be right and proper to see that the Air Force are put on the same footing as the Army in this matter because officers in the Army are allowed to put these letters after their names? Why should not those in the Air Force be put in the same position when they receive similar awards?

Captain Balfour: Because in the case of the Army the decoration is for officers only. In the case of the Air Force we have a common decoration for officers and airmen.

Bombing Policy

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the ascertained results of our bombing raids over Germany, he will consider whether,


instead of the more frequent employment of smaller forces, it is not desirable to concentrate large numbers of aircraft against specific areas, even if at longer intervals?

Captain Balfour: I can assure my hon. Friend that his suggestion will be borne in mind.

Mr. Simmonds: Will the Minister bear in mind that Bomber Command is the only arm of our Services which is able to strike at Germans in Germany, and will he therefore see that all the resources of Bomber Command are utilised to give the maximum effect?

Captain Balfour: I am sure that the Commander-in-Chief, Bomber Command, will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY (ORGANISATION)

Mrs. Tate: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with a view to better reorganisation of the work of the Admiralty in accordance with the expressed wish of the staff and the urgent necessity to economise man-power, he will set up a joint committee of administration and staff, appointed by these bodies, respectively, to review the work of the Department?

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): This question is being specially investigated by the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council and its Committees. The joint machinery suggested by the hon. Member is therefore already in motion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Women's Royal Naval Service

Mr. Colegate: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why officers of the Women's Royal Naval Service working at the Admiralty or at the Women's Royal Naval Service headquarters do not receive the allowance given to officers of the Royal Navy working at the Admiralty; and whether he is taking any steps to remove this anomaly?

Mr. George Hall: It has recently been decided to pay Admiralty headquarters allowances to officers of the W.R.N.S. at two-thirds of the rates payable to naval

officers of the same relative rank. Payment will be retrospective to 31st July, 1942.

Mr. Colegate: Upon what principle is the two-thirds allowance based?

Mr. Hall: It is in accordance with a policy which is common to the three Services.

Mr. Brooke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in the case of girls born between 1918 and 1922, hitherto retained in important civilian work but now urged to volunter for the Services, what are the qualifications demanded of them before they can be accepted as volunteers for the Women's Royal Naval Service; whether he is aware that such girls are being told at Employment Exchanges that they have no hope of acceptance unless they can say that they have relations in the Navy; and whether he will make clear that entry into this Service depends on personal merit and suitability, not on family connections?

Mr. Hall: I welcome the opportunity of dealing up any misunderstanding on this Question, and as the answer is somewhat long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Women in the conscribed age groups are only allowed to volunteer for the Women's Services through the Ministry of Labour and National Service. The requirements of the W.R.N.S. are much less than those of the other two Services and applications are only referred to the W.R.N.S. when volunteers have certain qualifications. If a women fulfils any of the following seven conditions her application may be referred to the W.R.N.S. though it is not possible to guarantee that all those whose names are forwarded will be accepted: —

1. Past service in the W.R.N.S. or Admiralty; or in the Sea Transport Office of the Ministry of War Transport or G.P.O. Fleet Mail Office.
2. Practical experience of boat work, e.g., Sea Rangers or ex-members of the River Emergency Service.
3. Previous experience of domestic work and desire to enter as a cook or steward.
4. If written application to join the Women's Royal Naval Service was


made before becoming liable for call-up under the National Service Acts.
5. Father or brother in the Navy or sister or mother in the W.R.N.S.
6. Ability to speak and translate German fluently.
7. School certificate standard in mathematics and/or physics.

Any impression which may have gained currency that a volunteer cannot be accepted for the W.R.N.S. unless she has relatives in the Navy is false.

I would emphasize that these restrictions on entry to the W.R.N.S. refer only to women born between 1st January, 1918, and 30th June, 1922. They have been imposed in order to apportion the available numbers in the conscribed groups to each of the three Services in accordance with its needs.

Chief of Naval Air Services

Sir John Mellor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the previous experience of flying and service with the Fleet Air Arm of the present Chief of Naval Air Services?

Mr. George Hall: Although the present Chief of Naval Air Services has not served in the Fleet Air Arm, he has had considerable experience of this Service in important sea appointments during his distinguished career. Both as Flag Officer in command of the Battle Cruiser Squadron, which in those days included the aircraft carriers of the Home Fleet, and as Commander-in-Chief, China, he has had operational and administrative control of important units of the Fleet Air Arm. Admiral Dreyer was also for 2½ years Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff during a period when one of the functions of that appointment was the superintendence of naval air work.

Sir J. Mellor: With the greatest possible respect for this very distinguished Admiral, may I ask whether there is no younger man with practical experience of flying who could suitably be promoted to fill this very important position?

Mr. Hall: There is no suggestion that there is not such a person, but, at the same time, it was felt by the Board of Admiralty that, taking into consideration the difficulties of that time, Admiral Dreyer was the most suitable person to occupy the post.

Mr. Bowles: How long is it since this Admiral was on the active list?

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: Is not the Minister aware that there are naval officers who have had very considerable flying experience in the Fleet Air Arm but who have not been employed in connection with naval aviation during the whole course of this war?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is it not a fact that there are junior flag officers who have had long experience in the Fleet Air Arm and who have not been employed, although they are perfectly capable of taking this job, instead of an elderly, though very distinguished, flag officer being brought back?

Mr. Hall: That does not alter the fact that when Admiral Dreyer was appointed he was regarded as the most suitable man for the post.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister say what were the dates of the experience to which he alluded, and what were the services of the Admiral for five years before this appointment?

Mr. Hall: I could not, without notice.

Dependants' Allowances

Miss Ward: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that, in assessing dependants' allowances, pensions awarded in respect of sons killed in this war are taken into account and may in fact result in substantial allowances being withdrawn, his Department will adopt the same principle as applied by the Assistance Board and ignore pensions for assessment purposes?

Mr. George Hall: The arrangement suggested by the hon. Member raises issues which affect the regulations for dependants' allowances common to all three Services, and possibly also the Regulations governing the award of war pensions. It would not, therefore, be possible for the Admiralty alone to make a decision on this matter. In the particular case which I assume the hon. Member has in mind, the total of the war pension plus the dependants' allowance was in fact more than the amount of the dependants' allowance issued before the pension was awarded.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that the information sent to the Admiralty


shows that a woman is 6d. worse off in these circumstances than she was before, in relation to the allowance? Will the right hon. Gentleman make the appropriate representations, in order that the Services may be brought into line with the concession which the House of Commons has wrung from the Front Bench in relation to pensions awarded for sons killed in the war?

Mr. Hall: Concerning the case in which the hon. Lady is particularly interested, there are certain complications, and I should be quite prepared to meet her on the matter.

Mr. Constantinesco (Watercraft invention)

Commander Bower: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what assistance has been afforded to Mr. George Constantinesco in the development of the water-craft referred to by him in his letter, dated 7th September, 1939, to the Director of Naval Construction?

Mr. George Hall: Mr. Constantinesco has given the Admiralty no technical information about the watercraft referred to. In the absence of such information the Armiralty have been unable to support his request for priorities for the supply of building and other materials, which he states he requires in order to develop his invention. The Admiralty have, however, helped Mr. Constantinesco by arranging for an aircraft engine to be supplied for use in his experiments.

Commander Bower: In view of the fact that three years and more have elapsed since Mr. Constantinesco offered to place the secrets of his invention at the disposal of the Director of Naval Construction, is it not time that something more was done? Could not the First Lord of the Admiralty consult with the Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Cabinet in order to find some way of using the services of inventors?

Mr. Hall: It is true that this matter has been under consideration for three years, but not by the Admiralty. The Admiralty have during the whole of this period asked this gentleman to furnish information to them, and he has refused to do so, notwithstanding explicit assurances by the First Lord with regard to secrecy. As a matter of fact, twice during the course of this year my right hon. Friend has assured this gentleman in personal letters that if this gentleman will trust the First Lord

he will see that Mr. Constantinesco gets a square deal.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: In view of the unfortunate history of some of the inventions of this gentleman, will the Admiralty keep a very close eye on the public purse in this matter?

Mr. A. Edwards: Is it not a fact that this gentleman was responsible for one of the most important inventions during the last war, and if he has similar contributions to make how, is it not very serious that all this time should have elapsed?

Mr. Hall: What is expected of this gentleman is that he shall do what everybody else has been asked to do in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Stockdale Commission

Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the Commission, headed by Sir Frank Stock-dale, has proceeded with its task in the West Indies; how many Reports have been received; whether these will be published at an early date with particulars of the action already taken upon their recommendations; and what other steps are contemplated to give effect to them?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Comptroller's organisation is making satisfactory progress with its task. Over a hundred reports have been received from the Comptroller, chiefly in support of particular proposals which have resulted in schemes under the Act, but including some general reports on different subjects. To publish all such reports would not, in the opinion of my Noble Friend, give information of the nature desired. A comprehensive report upon progress made since the Act came into force, together with the statutory annual return of schemes in respect of the year ended the 31st March, 1942, will, I hope, be laid upon the Table of the House in the near future. In regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply circulated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 8th October, 1941. I would add that difficulty in obtaining suitable staff and material, owing to war conditions, has inevitably delayed some of the schemes made under the Act.

Mr. Mathers: While thanking the Minister for his answer, may I ask for his assurance that all is being done that can be done to expedite progress in these matters?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, we are pressing forward with the utmost expedition.

Food Rationing

Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent food rationing has been put into operation in Barbados; and whether similar action will be taken in other West Indian Colonies?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The consumption of rice and edible oil is at present subject to restriction in Barbados and an individual rice rationing scheme is being prepared. In addition the necessary organisation has been set up to enable more comprehensive rationing to be introduced if necessary. As regards the other West Indian Colonies, a comprehensive rationing scheme has been drawn up in Trinidad, and I expect shortly to receive further information from the other Colonies.

Mr. Mathers: The Minister said, "if necessary." Has it not come to the knowledge of the Government that food rationing is necessary?

Mr. Macmillan: I said it would be extended to other commodities. There are certain difficulties about the institution of a comprehensive system of rationing in the Colonies.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the rationing relative to the normal low standard prevailing in the West Indies, or to a more ideal standard?

Mr. Macmillan: It is relative to the difficulties we have to face in obtaining supplies from abroad.

Mr. Sorensen: How does it work?

Banana and Sugar Industries

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the West Indies research is proceeding towards the preserving of the banana industry and also in connection with the production of sugar; and the respective sums allocated thereto?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Considerable research is being, and has been carried on

in connection with both the banana and sugar industries in the West Indies, and substantial sums have been expended on it both from public and private funds. The work is carried on in so many territories and with the co-operation of so many different agencies that considerable labour would be required to ascertain precisely what sums are devoted to these purposes, but my hon. Friend may be assured that these matters are regarded as of the first importance here and in the West Indies, and there is no danger that the work will be stinted through lack of funds.

Mr. Adams: Will a report be issued to Members in due course?

Mr. Macmillan: I will make whatever possible report I can. As my hon. Friend knows, I am always anxious to give information consistent with the difficulty of devoting a great deal of labour necessary to obtaining information from different sources.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Is It not a fact that all these subjects are under the constant review of the Tropical School of Agriculture in Trinidad, and would it not be possible to place the annual report of that body in the Library of the House?

Mr. Macmillan: Oh, yes, but I was asked to give such comprehensive figures that I was naturally concerned about the difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the conditions covering the employment of children in Nyasaland; the minimum age of employment; and whether any welfare, supervision and inspection have been arranged?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Nyasaland Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Ordinance provides that no child under the age of twelve years shall be employed in any public or private industrial undertaking (as defined in the International Labour Convention on the subject), except where only members of the same family are employed, or where the employment involves light work of a character approved by the Governor, and that no young person between the ages of twelve and fourteen years shall be


employed in any industrial undertaking other than an undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed, except and in so far as the employment has been authorised by a licence issued by the Governor. The Ordinance further prohibits absolutely the employment at night of any such persons; and it also prohibits the employment at night of young persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, except under licence issued by the Governor. The Labour Department is responsible for the general supervision of labour in the Protectorate, but the Ordinance provides that any District Commissioner or any European police officer shall have power to enter the land or premises of any industrial undertaking and to inquire into the conditions of employment of any person affected by the provisions of the Ordinance.

Mr. Creech Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there has been some modification in recent months in regard to the age limit for employment, and if there has been modification, will he see that satisfactory arrangements are made in respect to welfare?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (WOMEN DETAINEES)

Mr. Astor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conditions under which women suspects in Palestine have been detained have been improved both as to location and the provision of adequate medical attention?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The civilian internment camps in Palestine were inspected earlier this year by the delegate of the International Red Cross Committee, who recorded in his report that the camps had left an excellent impression. It is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government and of the authorities in Palestine to maintain this high standard. My Noble Friend will, of course, make inquiries about any individual complaint when it is brought to his attention.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a case when even Allies have actually been put in a lunatic asylum and subsequently released absolutely without a stain on their character, and will he take care that this sort of thing does not occur again?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member was good enough to bring to my attention the case to which he refers, but without any method by which I could institute an inquiry or trace it, it was so vague in its character.

Mr. Astor: When I mentioned it to the right hon. Gentleman he did not complain that my information was not specific enough.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY

Wrecked Seamen (Frostbite)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the methods at present in use for the mitigation of frostbite injuries to which all wrecked seamen, particularly those sailing in Arctic waters, are liable?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Full instructions for the prevention and treatment of frostbite are given in a notice issued by the Ministry of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. Each man is provided with a rubberised protective suit to guard against exposure in lifeboat or raft, in addition to the means provided in the lifeboats and rafts themselves for protecting the occupants against exposure. Specially designed protective clothing is issued to crews of ships employed in Arctic waters. Oil is also provided for further protection and for massage, but I am not yet satisfied that the importance of using this oil is properly understood by seamen, and I am indebted to my hon. Friend for this opportunity of saying that this and other aspects; of the matter are now under active consideration.

Mr. Edwards: As I have witnessed some of the cases where people have been affected with frostbite, I appreciate the answer given, but I do wish the Ministry of War Transport to watch this matter very carefully, not only from the aspect of merchant seamen, but also from the aspect of those serving in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I fully share the hon. Member's anxiety about the number of limbs lost through frostbite and foot immersion, and I hope our measures will be even better than in the past.

Captain Poole: Are we to understand that there is rubberised protective clothing for every seaman sailing in Arctic waters in British ships?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Sea-Water Conversion

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what progress is being made in fitting passenger and cargo steamers with machines for making sea water drinkable?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My. Ministry have made every effort in their power to secure an apparatus which will give seamen and others who are cast away in lifeboats an adequate supply of drinking water. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has investigated, on behalf of my Noble Friend, various methods of converting sea-water into drinking water, and the conclusion has been reached that the most suitable apparatus for use in a lifeboat would be a small still. Such a still must have a high standard of efficiency in view of the restricted space available for storage of fuel in lifeboats. Experimental stills have been made and are now under test, and I hope to have early information in regard to their performance.

Belt-Scrubbing Apparatus

Sir R. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what progress is being made with the supply of the new belt-scrubbing apparatus, which in certain cases enables steamers to be de-fouled afloat without incurring the delay and expense of dry docking?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This apparatus has been developed by my Ministry in consultation with the inventor. Its purpose is to de-foul vessels abroad which, by reason of their long- stay in tropical waters, have lost speed through marine growths and which cannot be dry-docked overseas without delay. The use of this emergency apparatus enables the vessel to be scraped, so that she can return at an adequate speed to the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The vessel can then be dry-docked in the normal way. A number of sets are already in operation overseas, and further supplies are being sent to parts where they are most required.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS (FIRST-CLASS COMPARTMENTS)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has any statement to make respecting first-class and third-class railway travelling so as to remove the distinction between the two which is causing trouble and inconvenience at the present time and preventing the full use of seating accommodation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that first-class accommodation has been withdrawn in many areas for short-distance travel. The reasons for its maintenance on long-distance trains still hold good. On the whole, I consider that the present arrangements are working well, and I have not received any evidence which supports my hon. Friend's suggestion that full use is not being made of the available seating accommodation on the trains.

Mr. Tinker: My hon. Friend's experience is not like mine. I travel pretty frequently to and from London and I see the difference between first and third-class compartments. If the first-class accommodation was fully utilised one could agree with my hon. Friend but it is not.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend can send me evidence of the non-utilisation of any first-class accommodation I will have it looked into. It is a very difficult matter but I think that in very difficult circumstances the railway staff are doing pretty well.

Viscountess Astor: When I have taken a first-class ticket I have never travelled with less than six or eight people, sometimes 10, in the compartment, and the first-class accommodation has been fully used.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL FACILITIES, ESSEX

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what is the time that should elapse between motor-coaches or omnibuses arriving from London at Romford and leaving Romford for Brentwood and Chelmsford; whether he is aware that motor-coaches emptied of passengers at Romford proceed to and from Brentwood without passengers; whether instructions will be given that passengers can travel


on all empty motor-coaches going to and from their Brentwood depot; and whether he is satisfied that reasonable connections now exist at these and other parts of Essex, respecing the various services and that no cases exist of time-tables that do not synchronise arrival and departure services?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Coach services that formerly made through journeys from London to Chelmsford and from London to Southend have been broken at Brentwood and Romford at off-peak hours. This was done in order to divert traffic from road to rail. Through services continue for workers during the peak hours. During the peak hours the service between Romford and Brentwood is run at intervals of less than ten minutes; at other times the intervals are 15 minutes. I am aware that some motor coaches at present travel from Romford to their Brentwood depot without passengers; I am considering whether it is possible to eliminate these journeys. I am satisfied that, if both rail and road facilities are taken into consideration, there are reasonable travel connections at Romford, Brentwood and elsewhere in Essex. If my hon. Friend has in mind places where he thinks that such connections do not exist, I shall be grateful if he will send me particulars.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman considering sympathetically the possibility of seeing that coaches running from Romford to Brentwood which are empty shall be available to passengers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Preferably that the running shall be cut out, because we have to save all the mileage we can.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Romford passengers often have to stand for 20 minutes or more without any shelter? In view of the coming inclement weather, could some steps be taken to deal with this position?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I naturally wish to avoid all possible discomfort, but the services are at 10-minute intervals at peak hours and 15-minute intervals at other than peak hours. If passengers have to wait for 20 minutes, something must have gone wrong which is unavoidable.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many trains, motor-omnibus

services and motor-coaches, respectively, serving Outer London> Essex area have been cancelled simultaneously with the abolition of cheap day fares; by how many running miles, the train services have been reduced through the same reason; and whether, under the new circumstances, workmen's tickets for tramcars and motor-omnibuses can be available at a later hour and on both trolley-buses and motor-omnibuses?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The mileage saved by the cancellation of through motor coach. services in the Outer London Essex area is 11,252 miles per week. It is not as yet practicable to calculate what economies-will be made in the mileage of motor omnibuses and trains. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 30th June, the extension of the hours during which workmen's tickets are available would increase the pressure on services which at their loading peak are already heavily overtaxed, while their extension to trolley omnibuses and motor omnibuses would lead an undesirable diversion of traffic from rail to road. For these reasons, I regret that I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my hon. Friend aware that so far as train traffic is concerned, according to the time tables apparently no trains have been taken on? In view of that, is there any reason why cheaper fares should be abolished?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I explained in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question, we are hoping to make a great diversion of traffic from road to rail.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH-POWERED MOTOR CARS (CIVILIAN USE)

Mr. Astor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that civilians are using high-powered motor cars with high petrol consumption; and whether he will consider refusing licences to such motor cars?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think that the refusal of licences would be the right way to attain the object which my hon. Friend has in view. I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power


on 8th October, in which my right hon. and gallant Friend said that he was considering what further measures could be taken to discourage the use of high-powered cars.

Mr. Astor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a lamentable impression is made on men of the Merchant Navy by seeing civilians riding around in Rolls cars?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think it would be possible to forbid all high-powered cars, and I do not think the licensing authorities are the people to discriminate between one car and another.

Mr. Astor: Is it not possible to lay down a minimum limit to the mileage per gallon of cars to be licensed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a matter for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Sir H. Williams: Are not the highest powered cars to be seen in Palace Yard, with the word "Priority" on them?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Newspaper Article, "Colour Bar Must Go"

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Information whether it was with his knowledge and approval that his article entitled "Colour Bar Must Go," published in the "Sunday Express," was released by his Department for our Colonies but prohibited from despatch to Panama, Pittsburgh and Chicago; and whether he has any statement to make?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is, "No." In holding up the publication of this article in the United States, one of our officials, like Midshipman Easy, showed an excess of zeal. He knew that the article had been written many months ago in order that the Ministry of Information should place on record their disapproval of a lack of hospitality shown to some members of a group of West Indian editors who visited England. When this article was recently published in an English newspaper without any consultation with the Ministry of Information,

the official took the view that this article if cabled to America might be connected with the arrival of American Negro troops in England and might seem to be a piece of gratuitous advice to one of our Allies as to how it should deal with its own subjects. This, he felt, would lead to serious misunderstandings as to the real purpose of the article, and accordingly he stopped it from being transmitted to America. His intentions were good, but his action was pedantic, and must be looked upon as one of the occasional aberrations of a well-regulated censorship.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the satisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, am I to understand that this article, with whose lofty sentiments I entirely agree, can now be released for publication in any part of the world?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, any, paper which likes to publish this dully-written collection of truisms is quite welcome to do so.

Broadcasts (Complaints)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Information whether all features of British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts which might legitimately be regarded as likely to create differences of opinion or offend religious or moral instincts, including the recent play which depicted the defeat of Britain, are first submitted to and passed by the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether public complaints submitted either to the British Broadcasting Corporation or to the Ministry of Information are passed on to the Governors for their guidance?

Mr. Bracken: I should be exceeding my duty if I were to cross-examine the Governors of the B.B.C. about the arrangements they make for discharging their responsibility for all questions of taste or propriety relating to broadcast programmes. Complaints about such matters addressed to the Ministry of Information are sent to the B.B.C. for the information of the Governors.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not undesirable, from every point of view, that the Prime Minister should be represented as making terms with Hitler after the defeat of Britain, as was done in this play; and can any influence be exercised by my right hon. Friend's Department on this matter?

Mr. Bracken: I do not know anything about the play to which ray hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I will certainly call the attention of the Governors of the B.B.C. to his complaint. It is very difficult for me to follow every word uttered by the B.B.C., because they issue 3,000,000 words a week.

Mr. Silverman: If the B.B.C. issued nothing which was likely to lead to difference of opinion, might they not just as well close down altogether?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: What is wrong in occasionally reminding the public that we might be defeated?

Sir Irving Albery: Would not my right hon. Friend suggest to the Governors that they should strengthen their advisory committees, which were weakened at the outbreak of the war?

Mr. Bracken: I do not think that advisory committees are the best method of arranging these matters.

Foreign Press Delegations

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Minister of Information why South Wales was not included in the itinerary of either the Turkish, Swedish, or Brazilian editorial delegation during their recent visit to this country, particularly in view of the economic interests which existed between these countries and the Principality before the war?

Mr. Bracken: I am sorry that, having regard to the time available for visits outside London, it was not possible for us to arrange for the Turkish delegation to visit South Wales. The arrangements for the Swedish and Brazilian delegations are the responsibility of the British Council, and if my hon. and gallant Friend would put down a Question I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be glad to answer it.

Colonel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that it would be advisable for the British Council, when organising these most important delegations, to consult the Government Departments chiefly concerned?

Mr. Bracken: Far be it from me to advise the British Council, which was carefully separated from the Ministry of Information so that the pitch of my Department should not stain its blameless record.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILINGS REMOVAL

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he will take steps to obviate the present difficulty of communicating with officials and contractors charged with the work of scheduling and removing iron railings, gates, etc., owing to the addresses of such officials and contractors not being published; and is he aware that in some cases contractors are still arriving to remove railings without previous notice to their owners, and also of the dissatisfaction caused owing to dumps of old iron not being cleared, whilst railings and gates in the same district are being torn down?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): Instructions have been issued that formal notice should be served before railings and gates are removed. That notice shows the address of my Department, to which any communications should be forwarded. Certain dumps of scrap metal are held by the Ministry of Supply as an essential reserve, but if the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of any other dumps of which he has knowledge, I will have inquiries made.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my hon. Friend not aware that individuals and local councils were asked a very long time ago to collect scrap iron and to make dumps in villages and other places, that many of those dumps have not been collected, and that this fact causes great dissatisfaction to people who have had their railings, gates, and other useful articles removed?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. I have stated to the House on several occasions that the dumps in villages will be collected in the county drives. There is one such drive to be initiated in the hon. and gallant Members county, and the dumps in that county will be collected, as they have been in many other counties.

Sir A. Southby: Will the hon. Member look into the existence of large numbers of dumps of derelict motor cars, which might be cleared up and used?

Mr. Hicks: There is a Question on the Order Paper on that subject, to which I will reply later.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning, whether he is aware


that in certain districts young women are going round scheduling for removal iron railings and gates, additional to those scheduled by local authorities; what are the powers of these women; to whom are they responsible; and to whom can appeals against their proposals be addressed?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. These officers of my Department prepare lists of railings, gates, etc., which appear to have been omitted from the original schedules in error. Decision to act or not on these supplementary lists is taken by the headquarters staff of my Ministry, after notice has been given to the local authority. Representations may be made in respect of such cases to my Department at Lambeth Bridge House.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these young women are quite unqualified to judge the value of iron, either from an artistic or a useful point of view, and that they are acting apparently without any responsibility to anybody?

Mr. Hicks: The progress of the fair sex in the art of camouflage may have deceived my hon. and gallant Friend, but I can assure him that none of the ladies is under 30 years of age, and they are capable of scheduling iron railings and are working under an officer.

Mr. Naylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that these persons are not only losing their railings, but they are also losing their heads?

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether steps will now be taken to reverse his earlier decision and to take all railings unnecessary for public safety round Kensington Gardens and the British Museum?

Mr. Hicks: The retention of the whole of the railings which remain round the British Museum is considered necessary for reasons of security. I am having the question of the Kensington Garden railings re-examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (SCOTT COMMITTEE)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning what evidence from

organisations responsible for electricity supply the Scott Committee received before making statements and recommendations concerning electricity supply?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): A list of the organisations which gave evidence before the Scott Committee will be found in the appendix to the Report, which has been presented to Parliament.

Sir J. Mellor: Why was the Joint Committee representing all supply undertakings, both municipal and commercial, not invited to give evidence?

Mr. Strauss: I clearly cannot say what governed the Committee in the choice of those who gave evidence before it, but no interest that did not give evidence is prevented from making any representations it may wish in regard to any recommendations contained in the Committee's Report, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is now being closely examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLANNING INSTRUCTIONS

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT his Ministry's instructions, dated 21st July, 1942, to local authorities and planning committees?

Mr. H. Strauss: It would not be in accordance with precedent to publish such a circular letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but a copy will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has tried to get the Press to publish these instructions, which are of great public interest?

Mr. Strauss: The circular received some notice in the daily Press, and also received considerable comment and was generally printed in full in the technical Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING OF ITALY

Sir A. Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information to show that the Italian Air Force are assisting the Luftwaffe on the Russian front; and, if so, why do we not attack military targets in Italy, particularly in Rome and in the Val d'Aosta, in order to assist our Russian Allies by opening a second aerial front in Italy?

Mr. Attlee: Operational matters cannot be dealt with suitably at Question time.

Sir A. Southby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any communications, direct or indirect, have passed between His Majesty's Government and any authority in Italy regarding aerial action by us against Italy; and, further, whether the time has not arrived for us to assist our Army in Egypt by bombing the source of power which supplies the transport of German troops to Egypt?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION

Assisted Factories, Scotland

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Production the counties in Scotland where subsidised factories are situated; and the number and location of subsidised factories in Fife and Lanarkshire, respectively?

Mr. Welsh: asked the Minister of Production the number of subsidised factories in Scotland and the number situated in the county of Lanark, respectively?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttel-ton): A great number of undertakings engaged on war production are in receipt of Government assistance, in one form or another, and if the hon. Members would get into touch with me and let me know what form of assistance they have in mind I will do my best to provide them with the information which they require.

Resources (Allocation)

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: asked the Minister of Production whether, having regard to the fact that the national production effort is in many respects approaching its full capacity, he contemplates any, and, if so, what, measures for the more efficient allocation of production resources?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The proposed measures are first, to spread the demand for power, transport, housing and, above all, labour, more evenly by transferring the key personnel and plant of selected undertakings out of the congested areas. Secondly, I propose a number of measures for dealing with firms whose use of scarce resources is wasteful. In some cases the remedy will consist of a rearrangement of work or of an improvement in management. In others we shall try to secure a more effective use of

resources by grouping or by affiliation. Where all else fails we shall prohibit a firm from accepting further orders. This last is a serious step and will be taken only after exhaustive examination, in which the local knowledge of Regional Boards will be a safeguard against mistakes.
In all these measures I shall co-operate closely with my colleagues in charge of the Supply Departments, who are constantly engaged in dealing with various aspects of this problem. As a corollary to these measures, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has amended the Location of Industry (Restriction) Order in such a way that it is now necessary to obtain a licence for any manufacturing undertaking coming into existence or changing the nature of its activities, whatever its size, and the previous exemption in the case of premises of less than 3,000 square feet has been abolished.

Sir H. Williams: Does this mean that in future contracts are to be sent to where the people are instead of driving the people from one district to another?

Mr. Lyttelton: It means that there will be a general rearrangement all round on the lines my hon. Friend suggested.

Sir H. Williams: Let us be clear about this. For a long time contracts have been sent to some areas where there is very little mobile labour, and other districts have had to supply this labour, and this is causing dissatisfaction. Do I understand that it means a reversal of that policy?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have answered that question. That is certainly one of the aspects we shall have to follow, but there are many others of a similar kind.

Mr. Oldfield: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the serious state of affairs in one of our most up-to-date production works by virtue of the fact that the management say there is no work? Dissatisfaction is growing among the men and has he made any investigation about it?

Mr. Lyttelton: If I could have particulars, I would be glad to look into it.

Miss Ward: Are the Government readjusting their strategic difficulties which


hampered the distribution of industry at the outbreak of war?

Mr. Lyttelton: I hardly think that that arises out of the present Question.

Tanks

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Production whether he will take steps to ensure the closest liaison between troops using tanks operationally and those responsible for design and production in order that the lessons of experience can be acted on with the minimum of delay?

Mr. Lyttelton: Machinery already exists which ensures the closest liaison between units using tanks in the field and all concerned with the design and production of the vehicles. These arrangements are constantly under review by the War Office and the Ministry of Supply, in consultation with myself, with a view to studying the criticisms and suggestions of the Fighting Forces and ensuring their application in design and production at the earliest possible moment. There are various channels of communication between the user in the Middle East and development and supply in this country. I would draw the hon. Member's attention in particular to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, on 5th May last, in which he announced the formation of Operational Research Groups working with the Army in the field. Valuable information is also obtained from officers returning from the Middle East, and, in addition, representatives of manufacturers have visited the fighting troops in order to get first-hand information of how their products were behaving and could be improved.

Mr. Astor: Does that imply that there has been a quickening-up in the situation which some time ago was considered unsatisfactory? Further, does this liaison also exist between American designers and manufacturers of tanks and the troops who use American vehicles?

Mr. Lyttelton: There is an American representative on the Tank Board.

Mr. Shinwell: How is it possible to have complete and effective liaison if we have such frequent resignations from the Tank Board? If there is no stability at the top, how can there be any liaison?

Mr. Lyttelton: The changes were intended to be an improvement.

Sir H. Williams: Then why did Mr. Oliver Lucas resign and come back within 10 days?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Have any reports been received from any of these operational groups?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have seen reports from such a section, but whether they were under that designation at such time I cannot say.

Mr. Lipson: Does that mean that officers serving in tank units in the field come back to this country, visit manufacturers and explain their difficulties?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think so.

Viscountess Astor: Can my right hon. Friend say what would have happened if we had set up this Tank Board two years ago?

Absenteeism

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Production what investigation is taking place into the effects on production of absenteeism due to all causes?

Mr. Lyttelton: My right hon. Friends the Supply Ministers pay constant attention to the question of absenteeism, in common with all other factors affecting production. The closest examination is given to particular cases where the degree of absenteeism appears to be greater than normal, and all possible steps are taken to remove the contributory causes. My hon. Friend will, however, realise that absenteeism varies greatly with local circumstances and, therefore, it does not lend itself to corrective measures of a general character.

Major Petherick: Is it not grossly unfair that a man in one of the Services who absents himself while on leave may be dealt with, and is dealt with, severely by his commanding officer and possibly by court-martial, whereas a man of the same age who lives in his house comfortably and who carries on his peace-time work is not dealt with at all if he absents himself?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that munitions production per man and woman in this country is higher than in any other country, and it is not about time that we gave credit where credit is due, to our great army of workers?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Would it not be wise that this question of absenteeism should be dropped by the Members who do not attend here regularly themselves?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL INSURANCE (BEVERIDGE COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Mander: asked the Paymaster-General whether the final report of the Beveridge Committee on the Social Services has now been received; and when it will be published?

The Paymaster-General (Sir William Jowitt): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 7th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield).

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that this Report is not being held up out of consideration for vested interests?

Sir W. Jowitt: Of course it is not.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the Report from the Beveridge Committee will be in the hands of the Government and considered before the new Session, so that it might be dealt with in the King's Speech, in order to ascertain whether the Government propose to implement their promise in connection with old age pensions?

Sir W. Jowitt: I have said that I anticipate that the Report will be received in a few weeks' time. As soon as it is received it will be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Price Control

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will specify the price controlled articles which do not enter into the dietary of the average consumer?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Of the articles of human food of which the retail price is controlled by current Statutory Rule and Order, oysters, smoked salmon, goat meat, horseflesh, venison, game birds, cream, imported tomatoes, oranges, lemons, and bananas would not appear to enter into the dietary of the average consumer.

Sir L. Lyle: Yes, but we have no bananas. What is the object of price-fixing these commodities and going to all this expense when the only effect is to drive them off the market?

Mr. Mabane: There are good reasons why every one of these commodities has been price-controlled. Although we have no bananas to-day, there may be better times ahead.

Condemned Food

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in the four weeks ended 27th August the food condemned in Manchester included 37½ tons of meat, 31¾ tons of fish, 16¾ tons of vegetables, 1¼ tons of fruit, 1,803 head of poultry, 739 rabbits, 445 eggs, 1,818 lbs. of canned condensed and evaporated milk, 869 lbs. of canned luncheon meats and 614 lbs. of miscellaneous groceries; what is the measure of food condemned in all the cities of the country; and what steps he is taking to prevent such waste of food?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the food condemned in Manchester during the period mentioned was approximately as set out in the Question although the quantities, according to the reports I have received, were in general smaller. It is proper to point out that these condemnations form a very small proportion of the total quantities of food distributed in the area, despite the very considerable transport and other difficulties now prevailing in food distribution. The concentration of slaughtering and other wartime measures, moreover, have had the effect of increasing the quantity of food condemned in particular centres, but I have no reason to believe that, taking the country as a whole, any substantial quantity of food condemned is waste, properly so called as distinct from food which of its nature is unfit for human consumption, ought not to be brought to market, and is, therefore, condemned by the appropriate authorities in the exercise of their duty of protecting the public health.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider it desirable to give authority to inspectors of ports to condemn fish which is not likely to arrive at its destination in a sound condition?

Mr. Mabane: It would be undesirable if it was thought that the Ministry of Food induced any inspector of food to relax his high standard. It is much more important that the public should know that their health is being protected by the proper inspection of food.

Mr. Thorne: Is there any reason why this food was kept so long that it had to be condemned?

Mr. Mabane: It was not kept so long. Eighty-eight per cent. of the bulk of the meat condemned was found to be infected with tuberculosis, which is inherent in the animal.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1942

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st. March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 116.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1942)

Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1943 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to. be printed. [No. 117.]

Orders of the Day — WELSH COURTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, which I do with very great pleasure, I think it would be interesting to the House if I were to give some historical background showing how this problem arose. If in the course of giving historical background I keep rather closely to my notes I am sure the House will forgive me, as I am very anxious to be accurate, and I know there are a number of Welsh Members in the House who will promptly pull me up if my history is wrong. Therefore, I hope I shall be forgiven if I stick closely to my notes and that nobody will be so unkind as to get up and cross-examine me on any of my Welsh history, because I could not stand up to it. I thought it desirable that this Bill should be brought in, and before moving the Second Reading, I proceeded to make what study I could of the circumstances attending the passage of the Henry. VIII Statute of 1536.
By Edward I's Statute of Wales, as long ago as 1284, Wales and its inhabitants had been annexed and united to the English Crown. Although at that time alterations were made in the Welsh laws, the people of Wales still retained their provincial immunities. During the Middle Ages, they had no representation in the House of Commons, with the exception of the two Parliaments of Edward II in 1322 and 1326, to which 46 Members were summoned as representatives of Wales; but the Principality was, in fact, controlled by the Welsh Princes and the Lords Marchers, under whose jurisdiction

Wales was really divided into a number of petty kingdoms where crime and disorder were prevalent in the 16th Century. With the Tudors, who, it must never be forgotten, were themselves of Welsh origin, there came a strong Monarchy, a powerful central Government and a political philosophy which would not accept a State within the State. In Western Europe at that time powerful rulers were consolidating their territories and extinguishing the local liberties of feudal times, which too often meant privilege for the few. In this country order was substituted for the chaos left by the Wars of the Roses. The process started with the accession of Henry VII in 1485. To end the disorder in Wales, the Marcher Lordships were converted into Shires, and Wales was incorporated with England. This was done by Henry VIII's Statute of 1536, which was described as:
An Act for law and justice to be administered in Wales in like form as it is in this Realm";
and the Preamble to the Statute of Wales of 1536 refers to The King's
singular zeal, love and favour that he bears towards his subjects of his said dominion of Wales"—
this was before the Statute of Westminster—
minding and intending to reduce them to the perfect order, notice and knowledge of his laws of this his Realm and utterly to extirpe to all and singular the sinister usages and customs differing from the same and to bring his said subjects of this his Realm and of his said dominion of Wales to an amicable concord and unity.
Section I of this Statute of Henry VIII provided
that his said country or dominion of Wales shall be stoned and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his realm of England.
It was decided that justice was to be administered according to the laws and customs of England and such other Welsh customs and laws as the King and his Council would allow, and Wales was accorded representation in Parliament. Section (17) of the Statute to which I have referred provided that,
Sessions courts, hundred-leets, sheriffs' courts and all other courts shall be proclaimed and kept in the English tongue, and all oaths of officers, juries and inquests and all other affidavits, verdicts and wagers of law shall be given and done in the English tongue, and that henceforth no person or persons that use the


Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner of office or fees within this realm of England, Wales or other the King's Dominions, upon pain of forfeiting the same offices or fees unless, he or they use and exercise the speech or language of English.
That is a fairly sweeping prohibition, and I am glad that last provision is in, for otherwise it might have denied to us the great services of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is himself a very great exponent of the Welsh tongue. And by the way, may I express my very-deep regret that, owing to the illness of my right hon. Friend, he is unable to be with us to-day. He has taken a great interest in the framing of this Bill, as have other hon. Members to whom I will refer later, and I know he would wish to have been here. His good-will and encouragement have been a source of great aid to me, and I confess that I should have been stimulated and bucked up if my right hon. Friend had been able to be here, and to follow me and say, "Bless you, my child." The Statute of 1536 was, I learn, not a gratuitous piece of tyranny on the part of an English parliament. It was an instance of the pursuit of national unity common at that time in Western Europe, and as a matter of fact common in our country at the present time, though not in the same form. Indeed, this purpose of national unity and the unification of the State was set out in the Preamble, which actually reads:
Because that in the country, principality and dominion of Wales divers rights usages, laws and customs be far discrepant from the laws and customs of this Realm, and also because the people of the same dominion have and do daily use a speech nothing like nor consonant to the natural mother tongue used within this Realm, some rude and ignorant people have made distinction and diversity between the King's subjects of this Realm and his subjects of the said dominion and principality of Wales whereby great discord, variance, debate, division, murmur and sedition hath grown between his said subjects.
That was the problem as it was seen at that time, and I understand that historians generally approve the assimilation of England and Wales for the peace and order which resulted. The Tudors, however, suffered from the mistakes of their age, and one was the belief that before we can have national unity we must have national uniformity. We know to-day that such nationalism can have disastrous consequences, as indeed we are seeing

on the Continent of Europe at this time. That, however, did not prevent the Welsh from keeping alive their national heritage. I for one am all in favour of that national spirit which is characteristic of Wales, and, let me add for greater security, is characteristic of Scotland as well; a national spirit which takes pride in the traditions, the history and the customs of the country; takes pride, if one may say it, in the differences in the way of life and outlook and temperament of the people of one part of this Kingdom from another; but which, despite its pride in its national characteristics and its national tradition, has no spirit of spite or enmity towards the others of this Kingdom.
That is a patriotism which is not a menace to the well-being of mankind; it is a patriotism which adds to the fineness of mankind by adding to the variety and the differences of outlook and temperament of different peoples. Therefore, I am, as I have said, all in favour of that national spirit which takes pride in its individuality, in its culture, in its literature, but which is not so exclusive and intolerant as to require the repression of all other forms of language, literature, and culture. One of the most vital and striking instances of that national spirit is, I venture to suggest, to be found in Wales. Moreover, as I had occasion to say lately, speaking in my other capacity as Minister of Home Security, Wales has a fine public spirit, a fine sense of public and civic service, and I, at any rate, was not surprised to find that notwithstanding the great economic troubles of Wales, the great industrial depression before the war among those areas with the highest proportion of part-time, unpaid Civil Defence workers, Wales occupies one of the highest places in the country. That is a great testimony to the public spirit of the Welsh people.
I have given the House some indication of the historical background of the situation which was complained of, and I think rightly complained of, by hon. Members from Wales. For some years there has been a considerable public feeling concerning this Statute of Henry VIII. Although its legal validity is a matter of some doubt and argument, nevertheless it was felt by the Welsh people that, as long as it was there, it was in a sense a reflection upon, an insult to, and a limitation upon the freedom of,


our Welsh fellow-countrymen. In October last year a petition signed by nearly 400,000 residents of Wales was presented to Parliament for the repeal of Section 17 of the Statute and the placing of the Welsh language on an equality with English in the courts in Wales. My hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies will recall that in August, 1938, the status of the Welsh language in the courts in Wales was discussed at a National Conference at Cardiff during the sessions of the National Eisteddfod. From the Conference originated the petition to which I have referred. It is based on the view that Section 17 of the Act of 1536 prohibits the giving of evidence in Welsh. Whether that is the effect of the Statute is doubtful, and the House will see that the Bill is for the purpose of removing any such doubt as may exist. It may be that the Section means no more than that English shall be established as the official language of the courts and that the records of the courts shall be kept in English. In any case, my hon. Friends will also be aware that it is the common practice of the courts to allow a witness to give evidence in Welsh, if he can satisfy the court that although he may have a knowledge of English, Welsh is the tongue in which he naturally thinks and speaks and that he would be at a disadvantage if required to speak in English.
It is the case that for many years past, the Lord Chancellor's Department has facilitated the conduct of business in county courts in Wales by appointing judges and registrars familiar with the Welsh language. In the summary courts, many of the magistrates are, themselves, Welsh-speaking, and it is the common practice for the police to provide Welsh interpreters wherever necessary. In assize courts and courts of quarter session interpreters are also provided. In practice, therefore, much has already been done to prevent any risk that Welsh-speaking litigants or witnesses might be subject to disadvantages in the courts of law. The use of Welsh in the courts however, is as the law now stands, a matter not of right, but for the discretion of the judge or chairman, and despite the facilities which in practice are afforded in the courts and make the statutory provision, in effect, a dead letter, the retention on the Statute Book of the Statute of Henry VIII is undoubtedly offensive to Welsh

national sentiment, and therefore we think it should be removed.
Accordingly, Clause 1 provides that Section 17 of the Act of 1536 shall be repealed. It also declares that the Welsh language may be used in any court by any party or witness who considers that he would otherwise be at a disadvantage by reason of his natural language of communication being Welsh. I understand that the number of monoglot Welshmen is comparatively small, but the number of English-speaking Welsh who think in Welsh and feel more at ease speaking Welsh is larger. I put it to hon. Members who like myself do not speak Welsh but who have tried—some have succeeded though I have not—to acquire a foreign language, that the real barrier, as I myself found even as far as I got with French, is In getting to the point of ceasing to think in English and beginning to think in the other language. I can understand therefore that Welshmen who speak English quite well and intelligently but whose minds are nevertheless working in Welsh and who consequently, in giving evidence before the courts and particularly when under cross-examination, would be at a disadvantage if compelled to speak English. We considered whether to confer upon the courts, in order to remove any doubts, an absolute discretion to grant the use of the Welsh language, but the more I considered it, the more I came to the conclusion that the only thing was to come absolutely clean and give the party before the court the absolute right of speaking in the Welsh language, if he thought that he would be at a disadvantage otherwise. That has been provided for in the Bill. We have asserted the right of persons who normally think and speak in Welsh, whether or not they understand and speak English, to use the Welsh language in the Welsh courts of law.
To complete the picture which I have drawn I must refer to Clause 3 (2). We have to make provision for those with little or no Welsh, that is to say, those who prefer English or who must speak in English. This we do in Clause 3 (2), under which any part of the proceedings rendered in Welsh must be translated unless the court is satisfied that such translation is not necessary for securing the due and proper public administration of justice; Where, as is frequently the case the Court, the parties and witnesses are all


conversant with Welsh, then the proceedings will not need to be translated into English. The records of the courts will, as a matter of convenience, be kept in English, for they may be required at a later stage on appeal. Clause 2 provides for the administration in the courts of oaths and affirmations in the Welsh language. We thought the best way to meet this point was that they should be in a form to be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. Such oaths or affirmations shall, without interpretation in the courts, be as legally effective as if they were in English.
There is another Clause which deals with interpretation. I have put this in partly because of a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) in a Question concerning a case in which a court awarded costs against a party to certain proceedings. These were partly general costs, but there was an added element for the costs of interpretation. I think it would be quite wrong that any Welsh person should be involved in any financial disability as the result of speaking Welsh, and interpretation consequently being required, and therefore we have made provision whereby the cost of interpreters will be met from local or public funds, so there will be no further difficulties such as that to which my attention was called by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
I should like to pay a tribute to those who have given us great assistance. This is a matter which affects not only the Home Office but the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I should like to say how close and helpful has been my cooperation with the Lord Chancellor in all the discussions which have taken place since this issue was raised this year. Indeed, if the Lord Chancellor had not been willing to march the same road, I should have been in difficulties. I should like to express my thanks for the cordial help which the Lord Chancellor, out of his great legal knowledge, has given me in the framing of the Bill. I should also like to pay my tribute to the Welsh Members. There is a Committee of the Welsh Parliamentary Party over which the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) presides and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly

(Mr. J. Griffiths) is now the Secretary and of which the Secretary in the earlier days of this discussion was the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John). All the Welsh Members have given us very great help, counsel and advice, which counsel and advice have been of the most clear-cut and unhesitating order. The Lord Chancellor and I have met them from time to time. We told them we were sympathetic about the matter but that obviously we could only bring in a Bill if there was the general assent of the Welsh Members. Once we had settled the principles of the Bill, the Welsh Members have been very co-operative, and the position is that the Bill has their unanimous assent and approval. It was conveyed to me not only by the Members to whom I have referred, but I had the great pleasure of hearing it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who is very keen about this and whom we all admire and respect as a great and outstanding representative of the Principality. I thank all these colleagues for the great help they have given us.
I move the Second Reading at a time when nationalism of a spiteful, destructive and disastrous order is spreading misery and destruction over the Continent of Europe and, so far as it can, elsewhere. It is perhaps characteristic of the extraordinary generous-mindedness of the British House of Commons that the Government should feel that, in asking for this Bill in the midst of a great war, the House of Commons will not scorn us but will welcome our action. Perhaps it distinguishes the mind and temper of this great country from the mind and temper of Nazi Germany and its associates at present. It is a good thing that this should be done. It is right to condemn the excesses of nationalism. The excesses of nationalism are a great curse to humanity and to the world. The best way to prevent these excesses is always to be forthcoming in removing grievances which people reasonably feel in accordance with their national spirit. We believe, and the Government believe, that the Welsh protest against the state of the law as it is is right, and that it is fair and just that that injustice should be removed. It is therefore with very great pleasure— and I feel it a great privilege—that I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill with unanimity and warmth of heart.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I can say on behalf of all members of Parliament from Wales, of all parties and no party, that we welcome the Bill, we are very grateful to the Government for introducing it, and we are very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor for the sympathetic interest that they have taken in the matter and for their rapidity of action. It has been asked, Why introduce a Bill of this character in time of war? We are fighting this war amongst other things for the suppression of injustices. It is well therefore to have a clean slate at our own door. Wales has had a grievance in this matter for a very long time. I am very glad that the Government have recognised that there is a real, live Welsh language in this country. It is not long since we had in the House the President of the Board of Education who gave a very enlightened view as to the position that the Welsh language holds and should hold in Wales, and will hold in the future, and we are grateful for this further recognition. After all, the language is one of immense antiquity. George Borrow, who was an authority because he spoke nine or ten languages and had a very profound knowledge of them, said that Welsh was one of the most ancient languages in the world, one of the purest, and one with a richer vocabulary than almost any language, and was even the parent of the Greek language and purer than Greek. It was spoken in this Island hundreds, it may be thousands of years before the Normans and Saxons ever came here so that after all it is a very belated recognition that we are giving to-day in this Measure. We are only giving to Wales what is given to-day to the Gaelic language in Scotland. There is no comparison whatever between the hold which Gaelic and Welsh retain in their respective countries. When I came to the House 13 years ago, when I was more impressionable than I am now, I was amused at frequent paragraphs in the London Press which in referring to an hon. member—a right hon. member-stated that he was able to speak Gaelic. Such a paragraph about a Welsh Member in Wales would be meaningless. There might have been some meaning in it if it said that he did not know the Welsh language.
Out of 36 Members of Parliament for Wales 23 speak the Welsh tongue and not

as a foreign language either. It is the language with which they have been brought up and the language in which they think. Many of my hon. Friends no doubt say their prayers in the Welsh language. I am glad that reference has been made by the Home Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I am sure that he would have been here to-day if he could, with the interest he takes in Wales after his distinguished record of half a century of service to the Principality. In the course of those years he has addressed hundreds of meetings entirely in the Welsh language. Some of the Members from Wales would not be here at all if they did not speak the Welsh language, for they could not have won their seats otherwise. Is there any constituency in Scotland or Ireland about which such a thing could be said? That is proof in itself of the extent to which the Welsh language is used. Wales is taking as full a share in the war as any other part of the British Isles. It knows it is fighting in this world war for world freedom, and the rights of small nationalities.
I am glad that Section 17 in the old Act of Henry VIII has been repealed. Many people say it is moribund already from desuetude. Let us then give it a final burial. We can regard this as its funeral to-day, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seemed to enjoy himself a good deal in burying it. I had intended to make; the quotation which the Home Secretary read, and I will not repeat it except to emphasise that Henry VIII, in the first clause to his Caput 26, used words which to-day sound melancholy reading. This Welsh Tudor King says, after referring to his desire to "achieve concord and amity amongst his Welsh people," that he apparently intended to secure it by
minding and intending to reduce them to the perfect order, notice and knowledge of the laws of his realm and utterly to extirp all and singular the sinister usages and customs differing from the same.

Dim rhyfedd man cynhebrwng sŷch iawn gaiff y corph yma yng'hymru heddyw.

I have just said in more picturesque language than I could use in English that the burial of this section in Wales will have no tears accompanying it. It is a dry skeleton that Wales will be glad to see buried and forgotten.

Clause I is the kernal and pivot of the whole Bill. The Bill does not give Wales all that it asked in that remarkable petition signed by 365,000 people which was presented to Parliament. We could not expect a Bill of this character to do so. It is limited in its scope, but it is in the right direction. It is a definite advance. It is a milestone. That petition was signed not only by Welsh people but by a large number of English people as well. That is a testimony to the fair-mindedness of the English nation. Many English people in Wales felt that the position of the Welsh language in the Welsh courts was unfair. We shall have to observe the operation of this Bill from day to day in practice, and if in the course of its application it is found that further provisions and amendments are required, it will be for this Government or some future Government to show more clearly and unequivocally still if necessary that the Welsh language must have absolute equality in Wales with the English language. The provisions of this Bill will help Wales considerably in that direction.

Mr. Ernest Evans: Like my hon. Friend, who has worked very hard and successfully in this matter, I should like to extend a cordial welcome to this Bill. The difficulties of the Welsh people in exercising the elementary right of seeking access to the courts have been brought before the House on many occasions. I find that the matter was raised in 1872 by the late Mr. Osborn Morgan, a highly respected Welsh Member, and in 1892 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I have been asked to say how very much we regret his inability to be present to-day to extend a welcome to the Bill. Every Welsh Member is grateful to the Home Secretary for the acknowledgment he made to the great interest my right hon. Friend has taken in this matter. More recently my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) introduced a Bill similar to that which we are discussing, but unfortunately it had the fate of many other well-intentioned contributions to the legal literature of this country. Many committees and public authorities in Wales and a large number of private individuals have been pressing for this reform for a long time. Our difficulty was to make an effective

approach to those in high places. Ultimately we reached the Lord Chancellor, who immediately appreciated the importance of the position and expressed sympathy and agreement with our suggestions. He in consultation with the Home Secretary set to work and Welsh Members are grateful to both of them for preparing this Bill. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome this Bill as a recognition of our rights as a distinctive nationality, but I do not wish to pursue that topic and will pass to another aspect of the matter.
There has been a tendency in references to this Bill to suggest that it is nothing but a recognition of a Welsh right and is of little practical importance. What I would emphasise is that it is of great practical importance. It is not only the monoglot Welshman who is under a handicap. For him an interpreter is provided, although in such a case there has been hardship, because often the cost of the interpreter has been put on the parties, as a rule the unsuccessful parties, to the proceedings. That was not fair, and that has now been put right. But the greater difficulty arises in the cases of the very much larger number of people who are able to carry on a short conversation in English on ordinary day-to-day matters, but who find themselves in great difficulty when they have to express themselves in English on more serious and important matters, and particularly when they are facing the ordeal of being in the witness-box on oath before a judge, and possibly a jury, and in the presence of the public. I can speak from experience of the many people whom I have seen faced with this embarrassment, from which they have suffered.
It is a natural and, within limits, a very proper desire on the part of the president of any court to conduct the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, but what happens is this: A man goes into the witness-box and answers quite easily the preliminary questions as to his name, his place of residence and his occupation. When he asks later for an interpreter the tendency has been for the president of the court to say to him, "You speak English very well, as well as I do; carry on as best you can. Do your best." That is not fair. It has created a great deal of practical hardship, and I am very glad that this Bill makes it clear that such a person is entitled in future to give


evidence in Welsh. It is a very difficult thing to think in Welsh and to convey your thoughts in English, particularly when you are doing it under the stress of being a party to an action or a witness in a court of law. Therefore, I cordially welcome this Bill from the practical point of view as well as from the point of view of its recognition of our Welsh nationality. I am sure that it will do a lot not only to remove an ancient injustice but also to promote the more effective administration of justice in Wales and enhance the prestige of the courts.

Mr. Lewis Jones: This is really a red letter day for Wales, and I wish to join with other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Principality in thanking the Government not only for providing the Bill but for giving facilities for it to go through Parliament in the shortest possible time. I would say to the Home Secretary how very grateful the Welsh people are for all that he has done in this matter. I was particularly glad to hear his testimony, and that of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans), to the interest which the Lord Chancellor has shown in this Measure. I have had opportunities of discussing this problem with the Lord Chancellor on many occasions during the last few years, and I know how keen he has been to see this Measure introduced, and I am proud to think it was left to a Welsh Lord Chancellor to play his part in this connection. I should like to emphasise what the hon. Member for the University of Wales said a moment ago about the man who thinks in Welsh. I know that it can be argued that a Welshman has always had the opportunity, or could demand the right, to give evidence in Welsh in a court of law, but it has always been left to the presiding officer in the court to decide whether that Welshman had made out his case for giving his evidence in his native language. The great feature of this Bill is the provision which gives to the Welshman himself an inalienable right to choose the language in which he shall give his evidence. That is of vital importance.
I think of the case of my own father. He was a prolific reader. He read Welsh philosophy and Welsh theological books, and always had by his side a Welsh and English dictionary for translation purposes. He had a very fine English

vocabulary, speaking the most perfect and grammatical English, but I think I can honestly say of my father that quite 98 per cent. of his speaking and writing was done in the Welsh language. His letters to me were in Welsh, he always talked to us in Welsh, his talks in his chapel and elsewhere were always in Welsh. If my father had gone into a court of law and had been asked questions in English by the judge my father would have been able to answer in perfect English, but I am confident that had he gone into the witness-box and been put under cross-examination he would have made a hopeless mess of things, for the simple reason that at all times he was thinking in Welsh. Therefore, when I think of men like my own father I want to thank the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor for the part they have played in making it possible now for Welsh people in Wales to give their evidence in a court of law in their own language. I think the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) mentioned this earlier, but I am told that so much enthusiasm has been created by the introduction of this Bill that it will give an impetus to the demand for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales, and some of the Welsh Members who do not speak Welsh are already, I am told, hastening to study the Welsh language, because they rather fear that as a result of this Bill there may be a demand that Welsh Members should be bilingual.
I would utter one word of warning. I hope that my fellow countrymen will use this power that has been given to them wisely. I hope that it will not result in delays in the hearing of cases and in the administration of justice, and that Welsh people will show the British Parliament and the British people that we can make use of this new right to our considerable advantage and in the interests of justice. Somehow or other I feel that the Welsh people will be anxious to use this new power wisely in the hope of being able to get something more from Parliament later. So many Welsh Members of Parliament would like to say something about this Bill that I will not detain the House longer; I think we are setting a wise example in being as brief as possible, and I will conclude by joining with my colleagues in expressing our thanks for the facilities which have been given for passing the Bill.

Mr. Clement Davies: I congratulate and thank the Home Secretary and, through him, the Government, for bringing forward this Bill. This year will be a memorable one in the history of Wales, just as 1536 was also a memorable one in another sense. It would be almost ungracious of me if I were to express the wish that this Bill might have been introduced, not by the Home Secretary, but by a Secretary of State for Wales, a Bill in respect of which has been presented by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) and myself, but which, unfortunately, met the same fate as the other effort we made to get the present Bill passed before to-day. I suggest the, possibility also of this Bill having been introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Preamble to the Statute of Wales took away from Wales the right to have its records kept in the Welsh language, but in that very Act Wales was described as a dominion. It might therefore have been possible for the Deputy Prime Minister to take advantage of his position and to introduce the Bill. However, we are grateful to the Government and in particular to the Home Secretary, who has been most understanding and sympathetic, I would pay a tribute also to the Lord Chancellor. So far as I am aware, he is the first Lord Chancellor since the days of Charles II to have a Welsh-speaking father. It may be that that is the reason why, for the first time, the occupant of the Woolsack has been sympathetic towards us.
I would refer to another matter. It has taken us from 1536 to 1942 to get this stigma removed from the Statute Book. I would remind those who are unfortunately monoglot that it took them almost as long to remove a similar stigma. It took longer to remove the requirement that the records should not be kept in English. It may not be known to the House that the records of the English courts had to be kept in Latin until 1731, when a Statute was passed through this House and the other place in the reign of George II. What is more, for some hundreds of years after 1066 the language of the courts, the pleadings and the evidence were all in French, and they so remained until 1362. When people think that some special privilege is being granted to us Welsh people they should remember that

they themselves had to pass through a struggle somewhat similar to ours.
I do not want to go deeply into history. I want to emphasise, however, that the purpose of a court is to administer justice and that justice can be administered only after the proper ascertainment of the facts. In order to ascertain those facts, verbal evidence is taken, and in order therefore to ascertain the facts correctly and properly, that evidence should be given precisely. It is difficult for anyone to express a precise meaning in a language which is not natural to him. There are shades of meaning which it is difficult for a person to convey in a language which he has acquired, and that is the reason we have been so anxious that our proceedings should be conducted in the language understood by the witnesses and the parties concerned. Welsh is the language of the home and of everyday life among them but suddenly they may have to appear in a court, where they are asked to convey their thoughts in another language. For these reasons I join with my colleagues in welcoming the Bill, which will bring a high degree of satisfaction throughout the Principality.

Mr. James Griffiths: As a Member representing a Welsh constituency, I have been asked to speak for the party with which I am associated and to convey our tribute to the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, as well as to the House of Commons, for permitting us to give this Bill a unanimous Second Reading, as I am sure we shall. There are two reasons why I welcome the Bill. It is of practical value. I would like to add a word or two from my own experience to show how valuable the Bill will be in the practice and administration of justice in the courts in Wales. I was privileged for 10 years to be a miners' agent in the most Welsh part of the Welsh coalfield, the anthracite coalfield, and part of my work was to handle disputes. I have negotiated almost as many settlements in Welsh as in English, and oftentimes it was easier to settle in Welsh than in English. We had occasion to go to the courts on compensation cases. I wish to pay tribute to the judges of the county courts in Wales. They always recognised very fully, and have sought at all times to ensure, that parties in the courts should get the fullest opportunity of testifying in Welsh. From my experience in those county courts I


realise how very important it is that, say, a Welsh-speaking woman who, has to appear in a court in Wales, shall have the right to testify in the Welsh language.
Take cases connected with collieries. In the area from which I come, as well as from other areas, Welsh is not only the language of the home but the language of the work. It is the language of the pit and of the tinplate works. The technical terms are in Welsh. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, who is present, knows how very important it is in all cases connected with collieries to use everyday language to describe the work of the pit. In this area, all that is done in Welsh. Unless these men are allowed to testify in their own language I have always felt they could not do themselves justice. In the past the right to speak their own language has been denied them. It has been admitted in practice but denied as a right. Men are often reluctant to ask for something given as a favour whereas they will claim it if it becomes a right. I therefore welcome the Bill, because it has that practical use to large numbers of people. Hon. Members who do not sit for Welsh constituencies should realise that Welsh is not a museum language. It is the language of everyday life, of the home, the pit and the village. It is the language of the community, which thousands of people use every day. Therefore to deny its use in the courts means that those people cannot get the justice to which they are entitled.
There is a symbolic value about this proposal. It is the recognition of a nation. To recognise a nation is to recognise its language. If there is anything distinctive of a nation, it is its language. Therefore I accept and welcome the Bill because it recognises the Welsh nation and the right to use that language in its own country. In his very delightful historical survey, which we very much enjoyed and will be as much enjoyed in Wales as elsewhere, the Home Secretary referred to the Welsh Tudor Kings and to Henry VIII and his professed love for our nation—he had a very curious way of expressing that love, I must say. Anyhow, we have wiped out that stigma now. We are recognising the Welsh nation.
At the end of his speech the Home Secretary said very wise words which I hope we shall all ponder. There are two kinds of nationalism. As he said, we see

one kind of nationalism in Europe to-day, a nationalism that becomes a hatred of others, and which embitters, corrodes, destroys. That is a nationalism we want to put down, but the way to prevent a nationalism of that kind arising is to recognise and to encourage the other kind of nationalism. Very often it is because the real, true, natural, instinctive national aspirations and needs are not recognised that the other kind of nationalism grows at all. I wish to say one word about Wales in this connection. The Welsh language is thriving to-day more than for generations back. There is a real, live, vital, living literature; more people write it and more books are read in Welsh. There is an extraordinarily thriving Welsh Book Club. The Welsh language has a bigger part in the life of Wales than it has had for several generations past. Arising from that and accompanying it are a feeling of national pride and consciousness of nation and the desire that it shall be recognised more.
I welcome this Bill because of its symbolic value, because it recognises the nationality of Wales by recognising its language. I am sure that in the days to come proposals will be made and other demands may be made upon the Government to recognise in other spheres and walks of life the needs and rights of Wales, I desire to see the nationalism of my country develop into the right kind of nationalism, a love of soil which does not become hatred of anyone else, a love of community which can co-operate with anyone else. I want my people through so developing to make their common contribution to the welfare of mankind. If they are to do that, I think we are doing wisely in recognising and giving a place to the language of Wales. I hope we shall give that recognition in other spheres of public life in Wales also and prevent nationalism from becoming embittered and soured, and so that it may be a nationalism that will enable Wales to contribute her best to the common store of mankind.

Colonel Arthur Evans: As the representative of the Conservative Party on the Committee of the Welsh Parliamentary Party to which the Home Secretary has referred in his delightful speech, I would like to associate myself with the sentiments which have been expressed by my colleagues of the Welsh


Parliamentary Party of all political parties which go to make up that organisation. In fact, the Home Secretary not only gave a most interesting historical review, but indeed one might use the language of previous Measures which have come before this House in days gone by and congratulate him on "the zeal, love and favour" which his Majesty's Government have shown towards the Principality by the introduction of this overdue measure of elementary justice.
We realise, of course, that this is not the first time that the Parliamentary representatives of the Principality have endeavoured to persuade the Government of the day to take practical action in this matter. I well remember when I entered this House for the first time, 20 years ago this month, hearing rumours then of a Measure which was to be presented. But nothing came of it. It is interesting to observe that it was only as a result of 365,000 people from the Principality, petitioning this House, a petition which received the unanimous support of the 36 Members of Parliament of Wales and Monmouthshire who make up the Welsh Parliamentary Party, that His Majesty's Government saw fit to pay attention to our request. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the Lord Chancellor was the first of His Majesty's Ministers to give us that official encouragement which we required to pursue the matter further. At a later stage in the proceedings of the Committee we came in contact with the Home Secretary and his legal advisers. There again we met with that sympathetic encouragement of which we are all so conscious to-day.
I think we are entitled to say that this is an illustration of the valuable results which can be achieved by Members of all political parties when they get together as a Council of State, sink their political prejudices and go forward together with a single purpose in the national interest. It is not the first time during the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) that results have been achieved in this way. We have evidence in the setting-up of the Welsh Advisory Council, and I hope too that in view of the sympathetic encouragement which has been afforded to us by the Government in this Measure, it will be the forerunner of a practical

recognition of the claims of the Principality for adequate representation in the Cabinet of the Government of the day. In the past Members of Parliament for Wales and Monmouthshire have had a right to complain that not only the Government of the day but indeed the party caucuses have been rather apt to regard the Principality as a political area and not as a nation. But, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), Wales is a nation of 3½ millions, a live nation with national ambitions and aspirations. For that reason I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary drew attention to the fact that in days gone by, we were regarded as a Dominion. I doubt frankly whether any Welshman to-day wishes Wales to be regarded as a Dominion, but we do wish at the earliest opportunity to see that Welsh problems and Welsh affairs are in a position to receive the attention of a Member of the Cabinet particularly appointed for that sole purpose, and follow the excellent example set by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary.
To-day it was suggested, I think by the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Lewis Jones), that there might be a tendency for some Welsh-speaking people to abuse the privilege granted by the passage of this Bill and demand that their case be heard in Welsh, quite unnecessarily, in order to delay the proceedings of the court. I cannot believe that will happen, because it would be an act of lunacy on the part of the person concerned, whether it was a trivial or a major offence, to annoy the court in that unnecessary way as he would, of course, only be prejudicing the court against him.
I would like to associate myself with the regret which has been expressed by Members of all parties at the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and to say how disappointed we all are that on this historic occasion, when a further step has been taken towards that practical freedom which Wales has a right to enjoy, my right hon. Friend, the Father of the House and the most famous of modern Welshmen, is unable to be here to share our joy. Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) to convey to her right hon.


Friend the feelings of all Welsh Members of Parliament in this regard. I would only say, in conclusion, with what pride and pleasure I join with the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and my Welsh Parliamentary colleagues of all political parties in crying "Cymru am Byth."

Major Owen: For 19 years I have had the honour to represent in this House one of the most Welsh constituencies in spirit in the whole of Wales. During that period, with other Members, I have never allowed an opportunity to pass of drawing the attention of the Government of the day to the necessity of recognising the Welsh language and giving it its proper place in the administration of Wales. I do not want to enter into any recriminations, but on many of those occasions our pleas were received with derision, if not with contempt. It is with all the greater pleasure that I welcome this change of attitude, not merely of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor but of the Government. I hope that that change will have permeated into the minds of the permanent officials of Government Departments. I represent, as I have said, one of the most Welsh constituencies in Wales. During election campaigns, at which I have addressed 100 or more meetings, I have rarely made a speech in English. That is not because the people of Carnarvonshire do not speak English as well as Welsh, but because English is not the language in which they think and live: it is not for them the language of the hearth, nor is it the language of the heart. For that reason I have always wanted to see the Welsh language properly recognised, not as a favour, but as the right of a nation distinct in itself.
The Welsh language and the Welsh nation have gone through many vicissitudes. We had the Roman occupation; we had the invasions of the Jutes, the Angles, the Saxons, the Danes and the Normans. All through that period, in spite of the inhibitions placed on the Welsh language, it has survived, and today it is more alive, more virile than ever, more than ever the expression of the will, the aspirations, the traditions, and the hopes of the Welsh people. When Henry II returned from his victorious conquest of Ireland, he landed on the shores of Wales, and at Pencader he came across an old Welshman, whom he rather chided

about Wales and its language. I would like the House to listen to what the old Welshman said in reply, and how true a prophecy it has turned out to be:
This nation, O King, may often be weakened, and in great part destroyed, by the power of yourself and others, but many a time, as it deserves, it will rise triumphant, but never will it be wholly destroyed by the wrath of man unless the wrath of God be added. Nor do I think that any other nation than this of Wales, or any other tongue, whatever may hereafter come to pass, shall on the day of reckoning before the Most High Judge answer for this corner of the earth.
I have always been proud that the Welsh nation, though small in number, though not endowed with great wealth, though not endowed with great armaments or anything of that kind, has played its part as a partner in the commonwealth of nations which makes up the United Kingdom. I look upon the nations of these islands as an example to the rest of humanity. Here for centuries the English, the Scots, and the Welsh have lived together in amity, have worked together in co-operation. But there was always one weak link in that combination. It was a tendency by the senior partner, if we may call it so, to disregard what is essential for the Welsh nation in order that it may realise that it is a partner in the true sense in that combination. It was a lack of recognition of the language which has survived through all these tribulations. I trust that this country, with all sections of it combining together, will now prove to the world that it is possible for separate nations to live in amity together as one family.

Mr. Richards: I would like to add my tribute of thanks to the Home Secretary and to the Lord Chancellor, as has already been indicated, for the great interest and courage that they have shown in this matter. Colleagues of mine have already referred to the fact that they have attempted to remove this great deterrent to justice, but they have not succeeded until to-day. It is important, when we are talking at large about the principles of the Atlantic Charter and things of that kind, that we should really be able, in concrete instances, to apply those principles to countries like India one week and Wales another. I am certain that Wales will be delighted with what is happening on the Floor of the House of Commons today.
I was particularly interested in the historical incursions indulged in by the Home Secretary. It was very illuminating, and I think he was quite right to go back to the Act with which we are dealing to-day in order that we might secure something of the background. I would like to remind the House, as the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen) reminded it, that we are dealing today with the oldest of the Dominions that have been associated a long time with this House of Commons, with the Imperial Crown, as it is mentioned in the Act, and it is an act of justice that is being done to a very old Ally that has been associated for many centuries with this country. It is obvious, if we read the Act, that the intention was that, despite the Welsh-speaking on the part of certain people in Wales, they were not to suffer any disability on that account. The Act refers to the fact that there is a considerable amount of Welsh-speaking in Wales, but it notes it in this way:
That all and singular persons born in the said Principality shall have, enjoy and inherit all and singular freedoms, liberties, rights, privileges and laws within this realm.
The intention of the Act was quite clear, that despite the fact that many of them spoke a tongue other than English, they should not thereby suffer any legal disability. Unfortunately they did not realise that the introduction of the Clause to which reference has been made to-day in the course of time did lead to a particular disability being felt by certain Welshmen, and so we are at last removing that disability.
I would like to point out too how long and intimate the connection between Wales and this country has been. Our reading of history from this point of view is very frequently incorrect. For example, I was very interested to find, I presume it is true to say, that the most distinctive Anglo-Saxon governmental institution was the Witenagemot, the meeting of the wise men of the nation and the realm, and, as the order goes, everything that was enacted was enacted with the counsel and the teaching of the Witenagemot. This was the usual formula in old Anglo-Saxon Acts of Parliament. I was interested to find that in the Witenagemot that was held as early as the year 931 there were two Welsh princes present. It was not a great assembly. It

consisted of about 100 members. The two archbishops and the two Welsh princes are mentioned and, if I remember rightly, 17 bishops. In the year 934 there were four Welsh kings present at the Witenagemot. It is important that we should remember when we are discussing these questions the very intimate part that Wales has played in building up the British Constitution, and when we come to the struggle for constitutional reform, there is no doubt at all about the very active and prominent part that was taken by the Welsh Prince Llewellyn the Great. There are two Clauses in the Great Charter which refer specifically to the services that he had rendered in that respect, and to the fact that he was entitled to justice as well as the Welsh-speaking people.
The conquest of Wales in 1282, to which the Home Secretary referred, really made very little difference to the legal position of the majority of Welsh people. It is important that we should remember, when we speak of the Principality in those days, that it included only three counties— Anglesey, Carnarvon and Merioneth. That was the Principality and the Statute of Rhudlan, which dealt with the newly conquered, probably dealt merely with that part of Wales. The rest of Wales was entirely outside the scope of the Statute of Rhudlan, and even in the case of the Statute of Rhudlan Edward I was sufficient of a statesman to recognise that certain practices and customs of longstanding in Wales should be continued, and they are incorporated in that Act. But outside that, I would point out to the House, Welshmen did enjoy their own customs and practices and had the right to carry on their own legislation. If we turn to the history of the period with which we are dealing to-day—the history of the reign of Henry VIII—a very quaint history of that reign was written by Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and he made this very interesting remark:
As the Kings of England heretofore had many times brought armies to conquer that country, Wales, defended both by mountains and stout people, without yet reducing them to a final and entire obedience, so they resolved at last to give all that could be gained there to those who would attempt it.
That is the beginning of the Lord Marchers having failed to conquer Wales, and it is important that we should remember these historical facts because they have a bearing upon the particular Act we are discussing.


They gave it over practically to the Lord Marchers to take what they could and to keep it, with this result in the marchers. As the learned Attorney-General well knows, the English law did not run. It had no effect at all. Every Lord Marcher did what was right in his own eyes, and the reason why Henry was particularly anxious to assimilate Wales to England was not because of the riots and the murders that were taking place in Wales, but because he was unable to deal with these Lord Marchers and consequently he introduced an Act to relate and to connect more securely what he called the Dominion of Wales with England, particularly with various shires in England and with shires in Wales too, in order, as I have indicated already, that he might put down what was happening not in Wales itself but in the marshes. This is what he says:
And for as much as there will be many and diverse Lordships Marchers within said country, and being no parcels of any other shires where the laws and due correction is effected. … and within and among the said lordships' manifold and divers detestable murders, burning of houses, robbers, thefts, routs, riots and unlawful assemblies. … it be enacted that divers of the said lordships marchers shall be joined to divers of the shires of England and several to divers shires of Wales.
That was the object. I think that sometimes we forget the object we had in view. It was to get law and order instituted, particularly on the Borders of Wales. It was to establish peace and good government in Wales, particularly on the Border. It was the intention of the Act that Welshmen should share to the full in the benefits of the peace that it was expected would ensue, but by a chapter of accidents, as we have seen, it so happened that it led to certain disabilities being placed upon certain Welshmen. I am glad, indeed, that the House of Commons, after hundreds of years, has at last seen in its wisdom that it ought to remove this disability.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I, also, would like in a few words to express my appreciation of the action of the Government in introducing this Bill and the gratitude of the Welsh people for whom I can speak at the fact that the House of Commons is prepared to welcome it. It is, indeed, a practical Measure. I will not refer to its need, particularly in the courts, but I would like to point out how live is the Welsh language to-day,

not only in North Wales but in South Wales as well. In the course of the last General Election I did my best to deprive this House of the advantages of the services of the hon. Member for the County of Cardigan (Mr. Owen Evans). In the course of that election campaign in Cardiganshire I addressed 100 meetings. If there is anything a candidate wants to do, it is to please and convince those whom he addresses, and he seeks the best and most effective method of doing so. Out of that 100 meetings, 97 did not contain in my remarks a single word of English. It may be said, "That is not a great tribute to your Welsh advocacy, because you did not succeed in keeping the hon. Member for Cardigan away from this House." But perhaps in my justification for introducing this I might say that the votes of the party for whom I was contesting increased from over 5,000 to over 10,000.
I would like to refer to the historical aspect. I do not intend to go over the historical background which the Home Secretary gave to the House and which has been so well added to by one of the ablest historians of Wales we have to-day, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), but I want to bring it up-to-date. How is it that, after many previous attempts by those who are now in this House and those who have gone, to get this obvious measure of justice for Wales, we should get it to-day? We have pushed the door often enough, but it has never opened until now. It might well be that there has been more energetic pushing and that through the petition, leadership and cohesion of the Welsh Parliamentary Party there has been a greater impetus against the door, but that in itself would not account for it. There are, I think, three factors, and the first is the greater readiness in an Imperial Government in these days when freedom is at stake to remove wherever it may well do so the hallmarks of conquest from those with whom it collaborates. I regard this Measure as being in the same category as the readiness of the British Government to discuss with China the abolition of extra-territorial rights. This part of the Tudor settlement, this endeavour to exterminate the Welsh language, was a hallmark of conquest, and an Imperial Government is more ready in these days to remove this hallmark.
The circumstances of war make it possible, but combined with that is the fact that we have, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), a Lord Chancellor with Welsh blood in his veins and one who is, therefore, more ready and willing to give ear to Welsh claims. But there is a third reason, and that is the sympathy and understanding of the Home Secretary. Why should it be so? Why should the present Home Secretary extend a more sympathetic ear than others who have preceded him in his high office? The fact is that this Section which we are now repealing did, to a considerable extent, succeed. Its endeavour was to stamp out the Welsh language. It did not succeed altogether, but it did succeed in the course of the last century in Anglicising a section of the community that one might describe for want of a better word as "gentry". In doing so, it deprived Wales of a leadership and a guidance in culture and the arts which would have been of great assistance to it, but it left the culture, traditions and the glorious inheritance of the Welsh people in the hands of the common people. I do not like the term "common people"; I know a better one, in the Welsh language—"y werin"—a term of more dignity. It left its culture and traditions in their charge, and it is in the charge of the common people that the culture and traditions of Wales have remained to this day.
We have had Home Secretaries who have been frankly antagonistic; some have been indifferent, some patronising, and at best we have had some who have been jocularly kind. This is the first time we have had a Home Secretary with a real understanding of the Welsh people and sympathy with them. That sympathy comes because the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary is himself a son of the common people and remains of the common people, and understands and sympathises with the claims of Wales. I am glad to pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Lord Chancellor for conceding at last to Wales a claim which Wales has long deserved and of which, I would like to assure the House, Wales will show its appreciation by using it without abusing it.

Sir Charles Edwards: I want to say a word or two about this Bill, because Monmouthshire is brought in, and I happen to be the senior Member for Monmouthshire, and indeed, for the whole of South Wales, and very nearly North Wales, if it were not for two others. I welcome the Bill. It is a common-sense thing that a man should be able to defend himself in his own country in his own language. I do not know that the provision will be very much wanted in Monmouthshire, because although there is in Monmouthshire a lot of Welsh spoken, it is chiefly English that is spoken. We have lived too near to Bristol and the Forest of Dean, and a large number of people have come over from those places. It used to be said that the first thing a Bristol baby said was: "Packet, mother," because they came over in the packet. There has been a large influx of those people into Monmouthshire, so that Welsh is not spoken there to the same extent as in other parts of the country. I was at one time check-weigher at the Nine-Mile Point colliery and local representative of the men. When the pit was first sunk, many people came to it from other parts, and I remember that some of the North Welshmen who came could not speak a word of English. When they came to see me about something or other, I could not follow their deep Welsh, and there had to be an interpreter between us. If those men did something wrong and had to go to the local courts, they were at a great disadvantage. It is for that sort of reason that I think this Bill does a very reasonable thing.
I know I shall be treading on delicate ground when I say that I am not sure that Welshmen have not paid too much attention to the language. In Wales it has been all language. In Scotland it has been nationhood—quite a different thing. When I was in Scotland at one time, I went for a motor ride, and when we were crossing a stream, I asked the Scotsman next to me what was the name of the stream. It was a dirty little stream and not half as beautiful as the streams in Wales. He said, "Gala water." I said, "Did not Robert Burns write something about it?" He said, "Yes." When I got home I looked up the little poem, and I have been interested in that little stream there because Robert Burns wrote about it If a Welshman had written about it,


he would have written in the Welsh language, which is a closed book to half the people in Wales itself, and to the whole of England. Here I think the Scotsmen have beaten us, because although their dialect is a very strong one and they take a pride in it—my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) represents it very well—their poets have written sufficiently in English for us to grasp them, and this has made us interested in many things in Scotland that have been a closed bock to us in Wales because our people there insist on writing in the Welsh language. I do not know that any Welshman will agree with me in these remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Kirkwood: Do not mind them; I agree.

Sir C. Edwards: I have lived in the same place as one who is considered by some people to be one of our best Welsh poets—Islwyn, who took his title From the mountain on which he lived Mynyd-dislwyn. He was a great poet, but he wrote in Welsh; he wrote about that great mountain that I know and love so well, but I do not know what he said about it. It seems to me that there have been no successful translations of these Welsh writings. I do not know whether it is more difficult to translate from Welsh, but at any rate, there are no good translations. However, I agree that if people speak Welsh, they should teach Welsh to their children. My mother-in-law used to speak Welsh to my wife and my wife used always to answer in English. I think that was wrong. I believe that the Welsh people should teach their children their own language, but I believe that the Welsh language as such, and in the sense I have described and in no other sense, has been overdone.
In conclusion, let me repeat that I welcome this Bill. A man ought to have this right in his own country. After all, we are the original inhabitants of this island. I do not speak the Welsh language, but I am a Welshman, with all the sentiment, feeling and pride of a Welshman. I believe that in his own country, if a man cannot speak English, he should be given the right to speak Welsh. For a long time we have had some sort of system by which a man, if he could not speak English, was allowed to speak his own language, and many times it has been

necessary to canvass the court to find an interpreter. This Bill gets over that difficulty, and the interpreter is to be an official institution in the courts. This is all to the good. Let me say that I hope the Bill will lead to a Chief Secretary for Wales. Again, I am opposed to Scotland being ahead of us. I hope this matter will be pressed, too. However, for the moment I am pleased with the Bill.

Dr. Russell Thomas: As a representative of an English constituency but as a native of Wales, possessing some of the faults and, I hope, a few of the many virtues of my fellow countrymen, I wish to add my tribute to those of my fellow Members in thanking the Government for bringing forward this Bill and removing a very long-standing injustice. I am not so much concerned with the sentiment which has been underlying the speeches of many of my hon Friends. I am glad this injustice is being removed, because, as the Home Secretary showed, there is no greater difficulty than that in which a man finds himself when he is brought before a court to be tried for some offence, or is taking part in some civil action, and cannot think in the language which is being used, but has to translate in his own mind. Such a man, however well he speaks English, is under a disability. In what I am going to say I do not wish to be misconstrued by my fellow Welshmen, but I believe in the decentralisation of a certain amount of government both in regard to Wales and Scotland. I think that the domestic policy of Wales could be better activated, as it were, if there were a form of local government in Wales, and I think the same thing applies to Scotland, but I should deplore unbridled Welsh or Scottish nationalism—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Or English.

Dr. Thomas: Any kind. I should not support it. I hope that we are not moving in that direction and that this Bill will not become a stepping stone for the extreme nationalists to proceed further with their particular ideas. Do not let us look upon it in that way. We have seen the effect of that in Ireland and South Africa, where there are two races speaking different languages. A great deal has been said about the Tudor dynasty. Whatever their faults, they had great personality, which they probably owed to


their Welsh blood. I always looked upon Henry VII as a Celtic king, and it was a great triumph for the Celtic race when once more a Celtic king ruled England over all the different peoples that went to make this realm. I feel that perhaps his son Henry VIII did not realise, in the application of his Statutes to Wales, that in fact the people were thinking as well as speaking in a strange tongue. If you follow him closely, you will find that he hoped to educate Wales in order to meet that difficulty. One of the Charters that he granted to a school in Wales shows that he was concerned not only for the ecclesiastical but for the educational welfare of the people. Let me read the Preamble to the Charter. I do not think it is amiss:
Our subjects and lieges dwelling in the southern part of Wales, being sore pressed by poverty be not able to bring up their sons in sound learning, and no Grammar School is kept therein, whereby not only shall the clergy and laity of all ages and conditions become rude and unlearned men, and ignorant of their duty unto God and of the obedience which they owe to  but shall also be unacquainted with the English tongue and therefore unable to observe the Statutes which we have set forth and provided thereunto or to understand what they are bound to do in accordance with the form and tenour of such Statutes inasmuch as they know not the tongue of the English people.
But he endeavoured to teach them as it were, and he appointed a schoolmaster, and of course a lecturer of divinity at the same time. So that he concerned himself with education in order that the people should the better understand and obey the laws. Let us by all means encourage the culture of the different elements which go to make this kingdom in so far as it will have no ill effect on the whole, but do not let us encourage those violent protagonists of nationalism to proclaim the doctrine of separatism. Let us guard against this Bill being made the beginning of a revival of intense nationalism and racialism. The greatness of our country lies in the unity and singleness of purpose of the whole people, whose blood is made up of so many virile kinds. Do not let us by misplaced sentiment impair it. I join with my countrymen in thanking the Government for the gesture it has made.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope I may be forgiven for intervening in this very interesting Debate. I have, at any rate, one or two slight qualifications for speaking about my native land. I,

like my colleagues, welcome this Measure. I sat here some months ago and witnessed the British Government introducing a Measure, which became the law of the land, giving the Norwegian, Czech and Polish Governments the right to establish courts in this country in which all the business would be conducted in their native tongues. Such foreign courts can be established even at Cardiff, Carnarvon, or Swansea. I thought to myself, How comes it about that a Polish subject could have all the business of his court transacted in his own language in Wales whereas the Welsh people are not allowed in their own courts to speak their own tongue? I am very pleased that this Bill gets rid of that disability. I speak with some feeling, because the English language to me is still what the French is to my right hon. Friend. It is a foreign tongue. I still prefer speaking in Welsh, and I would address this House right away in my native tongue, but I understand there is a regulation that I shall not. I can, however, quote a sentence:
Câs Gŵr na charo'r wlâd a'i maco.
I think I am almost the only Welsh-speaking Welshman representing an English seat. There are tens of thousands of Welsh people in London, Liverpool, Manchester and other English cities, and there are also about a quarter of a million of Welsh stock in America, who will be very pleased at the step the Home Secretary has taken to-day. My own relations in Wales, if any of them were at any time unfortunately found in a court of law, though they speak some English could not express themselves as well as they can in Welsh. Even I, after 21 years in the House of Commons, having lived the larger part of my life in England, still think in Welsh. I hope I shall not be blamed for that. I have always held the view that if a man does not love the country of his birth, he has not much capacity for loving any other country. I welcome above all the toleration that has been exhibited to-day. I have travelled much through Central Europe and the Balkans. I know the problems of the Croats and Slovenes, I have seen the Magyars and Serbs and Macedonians too, and have been as far as Turkey where the alphabet has changed its character recently. One of the ugliest problems in Central Europe arises from the intolerance shown by the larger nations to the language of the


smaller. In that respect I very much welcome this Measure.

Mr. Tinker: May I ask whether the Welsh Members, having got this Bill, will not worry about creating a separate Parliament?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I understand that they have given no pledges, but there is this fact which may comfort my hon. Friend: they have stated that they started agitating for this Measure 462 years ago, and if that is a precedent, it will be 462 years before there is another Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Having started, we will go on now straight away.

The Attorney-General: From the debating point of view, this is an easy Debate to wind up. I want to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government how much he and the Government appreciate the reception that this Bill has had, apart from the help that has been given in its preparation and in deciding as to its form. There has today been almost complete harmony among the speeches, until, of course, a discordant note was struck by one of the Members for Monmouthshire with regard to whether poetry should be written in Welsh or English. It is possible that Wales, with its great imaginative resources, will be able to produce poets who write in Welsh and poets who write in English. One or two personal notes have been struck, and I should like to strike one and say that, as the spokesman who on behalf of the Government in 1938, on a Friday afternoon, spoke the concluding words in an unsuccessful attempt made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), it gives me special pleasure to wind up this Debate when the differences which were then uncomposed have been composed and this Bill has been welcomed.
Those of us who sit in this House do not need to be told that people who speak Welsh may not also be able to express themselves adequately and fluently in English. My right hon. Friend, if I may call him so, the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose

absence and the reason for it we all deplore, could not dispute that statement. I was interested, and I am sure the House was, to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) still thinks in Welsh. I will not go into the discussion as to whether my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary speaks French as well as he speaks English, because I have not enough evidence. Of course, there are people who can speak Welsh who would be perfectly happy in giving evidence in English, but there are undoubtedly cases of people who can understand and speak English in the ordinary sense who not only would be happier themselves but would give their evidence more clearly and efficiently if they were able to give it in what is really their natural language, the language in which, as some hon. Member said, they think and live. Therefore, this Bill, although it may not make a great difference to what actually happens, lays down that the language can be spoken as of right. It recognises that, and that is the thing which is welcomed by the House as the right and proper thing to do. It also has some significance that in the days in which we live we can turn aside from other matters to pass this Bill, recognising as it does, and remedying, a grievance based on the language differences of two nations which live together under the same King in happy concord.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the

Whole House for the next Sitting Day.— [Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — WELSH COURTS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making provision, among other things, for enabling rules to be made for the payment of interpreters in courts of justice in Wales, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for the remuneration of such interpreters in accordance with scales prescribed by rules made under the said Act." (King's Recommendation signified.) — [Mr. H. Morrison.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS, 1939 AND 1940

POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council dated 23rd July, 1942, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, making Regulations entitled the Defence (Amalgamation of Police Forces) Regulations, 1942, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th July, be annulled.
I am moving this Motion on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holland and Boston (Lieutenant Butcher) because he is unable to be in his place in consequence of illness. The question of the amalgamation of police is by no means a new subject. It was considered by the Desborough Committee as far back as 1920 and more recently by a Select Committee, whose Report was made in 1932. The Select Committee made certain proposals and recommendations, the principal of which was that amalgamation of police forces should take place of those police areas with a population of under 30,000. That Report was made in 1932. It is now 1942, and the Home Office, who, I understand, supported that recommendation, have had, if they had deemed it necessary, all the rights to introduce legislation to put these recommendations into force. They have, however, taken no action. The Association of Municipal Corporations, who represent the larger section of the police, also gave the recommendations their support.
But, as I have said, nothing has been done, and my purpose in making reference to this is to try to draw a dividing line between what the Select Committee recommended and what is now proposed by the Home Secretary, because I am not here representing the Association of Municipal Corporations with any idea of opposing police amalgamation. We admit, in fact, that in certain cases it may be advisable, but what we say is that during a great crisis like this world war the amalgamation of police forces should not have been brought forward. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that while I oppose this Regulation I am not opposing the amalgamation of police forces but merely want it done in a constitutional way after the war is over and, going a little further, after the first census taken when the war is over is completed.

In that way we may get a more efficient police force than we have at the present time. On that point, I would say that I do not think there is any body of men in the country who have the more wholehearted support of the public or in whom the public have greater confidence than our police.
Having, I hope, cleared that Select Committee Report out of the way—and I hope that it will not influence Members —I ask what it is that the Home Secretary proposes. He is proposing the amalgamation of police forces, and the ground upon which he is putting it forward is that it will facilitate naval, military and air operations. I attended the all-party meeting which the Home Secretary addressed, but at that meeting no evidence was produced that military operations are now in any way hampered by the present organisation of our police forces. No case was put forward which would warrant this drastic change.
We want to help the Home Secretary if we can, but we feel that he ought to make it clear to us how far he proposes to go. During the three years of the war we have had some experience of military operations here. We had the embarkation of troops, we had to deal with the evacuation from Dunkirk and we had the Battle of Britain. Surely those were major operations which would have given some indication that the police forces as at present organised were not in a position to enable those operations to be carried out with the desired efficiency. Apart from the association for which I am speaking, there are two other associations interested. There is the County Councils Association. In fairness to them, Jet me say that they have wholeheartedly given their support to the Government's proposal, but I must ask myself, Why does that association support this proposal? There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding among hon. Members who represent counties as to the power which is given to the Home Secretary by this Regulation. I submit that under it any two or more county forces might very well be amalgamated overnight if the Home Secretary chose to do it. I ask hon. Members who represent counties to reconsider the position during the remainder of this Debate. Unless we get some better assurances from the Home Secretary than we have had, I think they


would be justified in voting against this Regulation if it has to go to a Division. The other association is the Non-County Boroughs Association. They unanimously opposed this Regulation for the same reason that the Association of Municipal Corporations opposed it.
The Home Secretary has put it forward that he wants to be satisfied that Military Commands can more readily circulate their instructions. I have tried to see where there is any weakness at the present time in circulating Military Command instructions. I have been in communication with chief constables in different parts of the country, and to strengthen the point I am making I feel that I ought to read a letter from a very important borough police officer, which shows clearly that the Home Secretary's point regarding the circulation of Military Command instructions is not very well supported. It is a letter from the Cambridge Borough police to the Town Clerk of Cambridge:
I have to refer to your letter of 14th instant, regarding the Regulations herein"—
That is, the Regulations for the amalgamation of police forces—
and to inform you that chief constables are very much opposed to such a scheme, and not one of my colleagues considers that such amalgamation is necessary. In my opinion, there is already machinery available whereby the military commander of an area can issue instructions to one point, so they can be distributed to all forces in the area. A message from the Military Commander to the Regional Commissioner would ensure his requirements being passed to all forces in the Region. No. 4 Region is divided into Groups and the headquarters of some forces are regarded as group centres. My headquarters is the group centre for Cambs. County, Cambridge Borough, Huntingdon County and the Isle of Ely. Any message for all these forces is sent to me and distributed to them as a matter of routine. If the forces in one area were amalgamated and under one Chief Constable, there would still be the same number of messages to be transmitted to the various detachments under his command before any instruction from the military commander could be put into operation. In the circumstances I fail to see what can be gained by amalgamation. On the other hand, police forces are working smoothly, and the interruption that amalgamation would make to normal administration would by far outweigh any mythical advantages.
That I accept as being very strong evidence against what the Home Secretary proposes. It has been suggested by him that this is not a very drastic Regulation and will refer only to the smaller police forces. He has not yet defined what he

means by a small police force. I do not want to say that I am suspicious of any interpretation which may be put upon his remarks, but I should feel more satisfied if he would say to-day that the Regulation is to have a definite ceiling and what that ceiling is to be. I appreciate that, with this threat of amalgamation hanging over them, police forces feel that conditions are not conducive to the highest degree of efficiency. No police force has any idea whether it will be amalgamated to-morrow morning, so to speak.
One must admit that in these grave times some arrangement regarding amalgamation, or the machinery which it may involve, may be necessary. I would ask the Home Secretary whether the proposal is to be confined to small police forces. Can this not be done through administration? When the War Emergency Powers Act is withdrawn at the end of the war and this Regulation expires, what shall we find? If the Home Secretary chooses to exercise his rights during the war— and obviously he intends to do so—police forces will have been amalgamated. At the end of the war, how are you to restore them? The police have funds and property, and there are certain rights possessed by borough police forces and not by county police. How are these matters to be adjusted, in order to keep that spirit of good will which we know exists in the police forces? If the Home Secretary amalgamates police forces, he may immediately break down good will and confidence between public and police. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be more candid with us. Let us have a frank statement from him about what he is really going to do.
Another point, to which the right hon. Gentleman has not made any reference but which is very important, is the position of Civil Defence organisations. We know how the police are involved in them. What is to happen to them? I want the Home Secretary to make the position clear, as I am far from satisfied that Civil Defence organisations will not be weakened by this proposal. I am taking the liberty of asking permission to read another left  lealing with this point. It comes from  area which is in the front line—I do not think anyone will deny that. It is from the Town Clerk of Rams-gate and it shows that amalgamation would be extremely dangerous. The writer says:


The police organisation has become so interwoven with the local government administration, and in particular with Civil Defence organisation, that a transfer of police powers during the war would necessitate a complete reorganisation of Civil Defence, which it would be almost impossible to achieve in the present difficult conditions in regard to staff. The chief constable of Ramsgate is the sub-controller for Civil Defence; one sergeant has been seconded as staff officer for Civil Defence and other officers have received intensive training in various branches of Civil Defence. The chief constable acts in close liaison with the town clerk and other chief officers of the Corporation on Civil Defence matters, and frequent conferences are held between all other officials and the chief constable to ensure that all departments are ready to play their part in the event of a heavy air attack or invasion. The chief constable is in active collaboration with the town clerk in a scheme for the evacuation of the civil population in the event of a threat of invasion, including the housing and care of essential civilian nucleus to remain behind with the military if evacuation should be ordered.
This town clerk, who has had vast experience during the last 3½ years, knows what it means to be in the front line and we ought to take some notice of the case which he puts against amalgamations and how it will affect the Civil Defence organisation. I believe that this country will again have to experience very heavy raids, and I would not like to see anything done to weaken the Civil Defence position.
The Home Secretary will say that in opposing the Regulation we are taking upon ourselves very great responsibility. I am fully conscious of my responsibility, but I realise what may be the consequences of amalgamation unless we get some clearer definition of what it means. I am fulfilling what I believe to be my duty under my responsibility, and I shall have to vote against the Regulation if this matter goes to a Division. That expresses what I feel about it. We cannot ignore what people outside this House think about the proposal and the extent of their confidence in those who may have to administer this Order. Only a day or two ago the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, making a speech, said:
You can't have a Gestapo without a national police service.
Are we now laying the foundation stone for a national police service?
Once you have a national police service you have opened up the way for a Gestapo, and I have no more confidence in some of the gentlemen in Whitehall than I have in Hitler himself.

[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] That is what was said by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, and however shameful hon. Members may think it is, we must have regard to the reactions in the minds of people outside.

Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. Member has made a definite statement. Is he going to vote against the Regulation, no matter what the Home Secretary may say?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I want to make clear where I stand. I said I hoped that the Home Secretary would be frank, and tell us exactly how he intends to interpret this Regulation and that if the matter went to a Division I would vote against the Regulation unless the position had been clarified. The country is divided into regions, in each of which there is a regional superintendent of police. The Home Secretary may say that these officers have not the power which he wants for them, but if that be so, the powers should be given to them so that they can have contact with military commanders to take their instructions, which, from the regional superintendents of police, could be circulated throughout other police areas in the division. I hope that the Home Secretary will appreciate how we Members feel on this matter.
We are fully alive to the realities of the situation. I feel that other Members like myself want to help the Home Secretary in his very difficult task, one of the most difficult in the Government. But if he wishes to retain our confidence and support, I would say to him that he must have confidence in this House, as I hope we have confidence in him. To retain that confidence, let him come down to brass tacks and say what is needed and what it is intended to do. This Order is far too wide.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to second the Motion which has been so well moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis).
In doing so, I will undertake, as far as I can, not to travel again over the ground which he has already covered. I desire to approach this matter from the special standpoint of the non-county boroughs, for whom I am in a position to say something, and who are the authorities who


are, in the main, the police authorities which control these smaller police forces. This matter has been discussed from time to time upon the basis that what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary desires to do is to eliminate the smaller police forces and to combine them into larger and, as he thinks, more efficient police units. The difficulty I find in dealing with that aspect of the matter is that, of course, we have all got different conceptions of what may or may not be regarded as a small police force. Hitherto my right hon. Friend has abstained from indicating what the view of his Department is about that particular matter. Accordingly I have had to consider it to some extent in the dark.
I suppose we should all agree that a police force of less than 25 constables was a small police force. As far as I can see, there are about seven police forces in the country with a peace establishment of less than 25 constables. I think it is fair to say that in addition to them there also are two police forces whose peace establishment is actually 25 men. But the whole position has been changed by the addition to these smaller forces of the police reserve and the police war reserve, and if you add to their peace establishment the additional constables who have been introduced into the forces by the mobilisation, if I may call it that, of the police war reserve, there are actually at this moment something like four police forces in this country with fewer than 25 constables. So that, looked at from that standpoint, this problem is not a problem of very great magnitude. If you consider the number of police forces possessing less than 50 constables, I believe that the figures is something like 20. So the problem of the small police forces is not a problem of any great magnitude.
What is my right hon. Friend going to do in order to deal with this comparatively small problem? He has made this Regulation which, unless we can persuade him to-day to reconsider the matter, will give him power to form joint police authorities, and to form joint police areas without any restriction at all upon the size of the area or the size of the authority or the size of the police force itself in respect of whom he can make these Orders. My right hon. Friend is proposing to take powers of the widest and most comprehensive nature to deal with this problem of police amalgamations.

Indeed it is difficult to appreciate what powers he might have taken which he has not taken to make changes in the structure of the police organisation of this country. Under this Defence Regulation the Home Secretary can completely transform the whole structure of the police administration of the local authorities. In these circumstances it is not surprising that this Defence Regulation has aroused the most widespread misgivings on the part not only of the authorities who are the police authorities for these smaller forces, but on the part of those who are very big police authorities indeed. It is not only some of these small authorities who are alarmed at what is proposed to be done. Some of the biggest police authorities in this country have grave misgivings about the action which my right hon. Friend proposes to take.
There is another factor in this matter which I think has not tended to modify the misgivings which the police authorities feel. So far as we know, until this Defence Regulation was made there was no complaint on the part of anybody about the efficiency of the service which the police authorities were giving. As far as I know, it was regarded as satisfactory. Indeed, as the House knows, 10 years ago a Select Committee of this House investigated the whole matter, as a result of action which was taken by the Association of Non-County Boroughs. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that no grounds existed for modifying the then structure of police administration, save only that they recommended that a borough with a population of less than 30,000 should not be a police authority. That being so, if there had been any substantial grounds for regarding the peace-time organisation of the police authorities as not fully efficient, and in particular if the organisation of these smaller forces controlled by the boroughs with less than 30,000 population had been regarded as inefficient in peace-time, then one would have expected that long ago my right hon. Friend's Department would have acted upon the recommendation that was made by the Select Committee. The inference which can fairly be drawn from this long inaction is that the Home Office was satisfied with the administration of even these smaller forces.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Even to-day?

Mr. Hutchinson: I was speaking of peace-time. One of the matters about which the local police authorities are concerned is that when the emergency period ends their peace-time organisation shall be restored, until Parliament decides otherwise. Everybody, I suppose, recognises that a system of police administration which was efficient in peace-time may not answer the purpose in war-time. My right hon. Friend was good enough to receive a deputation representing the non-county boroughs, and, later on, to speak to some of us in one of the Committee Rooms of this House. He has told us why this very far-reaching Defence Regulation is being made, and I understand that his reasons relate to the operational control of the police forces. The Order itself says that it is made for the purpose of facilitating naval, military, and Air Force arrangements. I should not have thought that the existence of four police forces of less than 25 men would have had any very embarrassing effect on those arrangements; but that is the ground which is stated in the Order. My right hon. Friend has put forward other reasons why it is considered desirable to make these changes. He will, no doubt, state his reasons again in this Debate. But I anticipate that it will appear that the only grounds on which he desires to make this change are of a purely operational nature. He considers that there may be instances where it is desirable to have a senior police officer, or a chief constable, of a rather different type from that to be found in certain places at present, to take responsibility for the additional duties which have arisen from out of the war.
Furthermore, there may be certain police services which must be provided in time of war, which my right hon. Friend feels cannot be provided by the smaller forces. But all those objections to the existing system are based on operational grounds. If all that my right hon. Friend desires is the establishment of a wider measure of operational control over these police units, it is by no means clear why he is taking power to transform completely the whole administrative system of these forces. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain why it was not possible for him merely to have taken power to place these smaller police forces under larger authorities for the period of the emergency, and, if he considers necessary, even to remove a senior police officer

whom he finds unsuitable for the duties that he will be called upon to fulfil during the emergency. If he had done that, he would have obtained all the additional power which he considers necessary; then, when the emergency ended and the emergency legislation lapsed, unless this House had decided to the contrary, the police administration would fall back to the position it was in before this emergency regulation had been made, and the position of the police authorities would have been completely safeguarded, in the sense that the status quo would have been preserved.
It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say, "This is only a Defence Regulation, and when the emergency is over everything will be the same as it was before, unless Parliament should otherwise decide." But if you pass a Defence Regulation to knock Humpty Dumpty off the wall a great many things have to be done before he can be put back there again. That is exactly what is going to happen to these police forces. In time this Regulation will lapse, but the whole background of the administrative organisation of these forces—which has given satisfaction, so far as we know, to everybody in time of peace—will then have been completely tranformed, and the position of the authorities who now control these forces will be entirely different from what it is to-day. I hope my right hon. Friend will explain why it has been necessary to go so far beyond anything which seems to be required in order to obtain the operational control which he now considers to be necessary. That is what the local authorities object to.
The suspicion which has been aroused by this Defence Regulation represents a very much wider feeling of apprehension than the merits of this particular Regulation in themselves justify. There is among the local authorities of this country a feeling that the emergency of the war is being used in some way to prejudice their position as independent organs of democratic local self-government. Regionalism is in the air. There is much talk about reform and change in local government. Everybody agrees —local authorities themselves would be the first to agree—that changes must come when the war is over; but they desire to ensure that their position shall not now be prejudiced by Regulations such as this, before any complete inquiry


and a decision about their future status has been taken. That is the thing about which they are apprehensive. If my right hon. Friend had gone in the first instance to the local authorities or to those bodies which they have formed to represent their joint interests and had said, "I am not satisfied that I can be responsible for the security of the country in the present emergency unless I have certain additional powers," and had invited their co-operation and had heard their views, their misgivings would very largely have been met. But that has not been done. Instead of that, my right hon. Friend comes before the House really having made up his mind, and it is not quite fair, having done that, to say afterwards that, because they did not at once agree, you have not got their co-operation.
Nobody understands better than the local authorities and their officers the urgency and the exceptional nature of the present time, and nobody is more ready to co-operate in doing whatever is required in order to ensure the security of the country in the present emergency. Nobody who knows anything about the work which local authorities have done can doubt what the contribution which they have made to the organisation of the Civil Defence services of this country has been of the greatest possible assistance and will be so in the future. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in this Regulation he has taken powers which appear to go far beyond anything which the emergency of the situation requires, and I suggest that he might have given to the local authorities, apprehensive as they are about the whole matter, some assurance that when the emergency lapses their position as independent authorities shall not be prejudiced.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is it not the fact that the Home Secretary did receive deputations from the Association of Municipal Corporations and also from the non-county boroughs which my hon. Friend represents, and when he says that the Home Secretary should consult the opinion of local authorities, surely he has already taken a step in that direction in receiving these deputations?

Mr. Hutchinson: I hope that I was not putting my point unfairly. The point which I made was that when these deputations

were received this Regulation had already been made. It would have been more satisfactory from the point of view of these local authorities if my right hon. Friend had met them before he had decided exactly what he was going to do. If he had met them in the first instance and had said "I desire to increase the measure of control over the police forces," they would have been only too ready to co-operate in any way they could to ensure what was necessary for the safety of the country. I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to reply he will be able to give us some assurance which will allay the misgivings of these authorities about this Regulation.

Major Procter: It is not with a desire to make any carping criticism of the Home Secretary that I rise to oppose this Regulation. These Regulations are becoming very frequent, but in the very nature of the case they cannot be discussed in all the detail of a Bill properly presented to this House. There is also a danger of using these Regulations in order to get through measures which otherwise would be strenuously opposed. I oppose this particular Regulation because at no time has there been given any adequate reason for making such a drastic change.
The Home Secretary has stated that the new Regulation is a war-time measure and that the necessity has arisen in con-sequence of there being, in his opinion, too many police forces, some of them very small and that it is essential in time of emergency such as a threatened invasion, that the commander of military forces in any area should be able to make immediate contact with the chief officer responsible for the police administration, with a view to any necessary action being taken without delay. He has also stated—and I mention this in all fairness to him—that he has no intention of discontinuing as separate forces, any forces of considerable size, and that before an order is made, the police authority will be consulted and given an opportunity of submitting to him their views on the subject. He has also stated that it is intended to be a war measure only and that it will not prejudice, one way or another, any action which Parliament may have to take after the war.
In spite of that assurance, in spite of the fact that it has been stated that the purpose of this Regulation is to facilitate naval, military and Air Force operations, I am deeply apprehensive lest we do irreparable damage to borough police forces throughout the country and travel one more step towards greater bureaucratic control not only of the individual but of our borough councils as well. Everyone recognises that anything which facilitates naval, military and Air Force operations should be encouraged because everybody desires to win the war. But if I wanted to get a most revolutionary scheme through this House with the least protest, my best way would be to use the war as an excuse for the urgency and need of the proposal. Let it be remembered that similar proposals were examined by a Select Committee in 1932. They were put forward from the same source and by the same people. At the back of this proposal, it seems to me, are, not the military authorities but Home Office officials. It is they who more than anyone desire this Regulation; they wish to put into the hands of the bureaucrats the entire police forces of this land. There was no war when other proposals similar to this Regulation were put forward, and now they have attached to the old proposals new reasons in order that their Regulations can pass through the House without anybody knowing that it is being done.
Let us examine the "co-operation" argument in support of this new Regulation. First of all I would like to ask the Home Secretary what complaints have been received against the present system of co-operation? These small police forces in operation in Kent and the blitzed areas of Lancashire and elsewhere have so far done their duty faithfully and well and with the closest co-operation with the military authorities. Does not close co-operation with the military authorities already exist? If not, is there any other way to secure it without destroying borough police forces, which have done such excellent service in the past? If the Home Secretary requires greater co-ordination, would it not be possible in the County of Lancashire, part of which I represent, instead of abolishing the chief constables of small boroughs, to divide the county into areas and appoint the Chief Constable of Lancashire as a co-ordinating officer to give instructions to the chief constables of the

small cities and boroughs? If this were done, it would preserve in being the forces which are now valued by the people they serve.
It is said that this is only a war-time measure. Then, why has the Home Secretary made provision for the compulsory retirement of the chief constables of these small boroughs? Does it mean that they are to go out of existence altogether or that in future, even if the forces are restored, these men are to lose their jobs? Why is it that the municipal corporations are opposed to this Regulation? Why is it that the Police Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations and all the watch committees of the municipal authorities are opposed to the proposals he puts forward? They too wish to collaborate with the military authority and help to win the war. The reasons, I think, as are follow: The abolition of the small police forces in small boroughs will make for less efficient police service than they have at present. The chief constables in these small towns have a far more intimate knowledge of their local areas than any men outside.
There is also opposition to this Regulation because of the feeling of local patriotism and civic pride. The policemen know they are part and parcel of the life of the small city and town. Therefore to interfere with the well ordered life of these boroughs is sure to stir up resentment in towns where a united war effort is required. Again, these proposals make for injustice to members of the police forces who have done, and are doing, such splendid work during these strenuous times.
Not only is this Regulation unjust to the men but will inflict great hardship on the chief constables as well. In borough police forces the chief constables are generally young men who have gone into the service with zeal. They have worked hard to improve their knowledge and, step by step, have been promoted, until they have become experienced, efficient men. These are the men whom the Home Secretary intends to put on the scrap heap. They are to be wiped out of existence or demoted to be superintendents. There is no provision for them except that, I think, they are to have 10 years added to their service. They have given up their position in large towns on their appointment as chief constables


in the boroughs. They may have bought a house and given the best part of their working lives to the town. But there is no scheme to compensate them for their loss of office. They are simply to be scrapped or given a 10 years' extra service grant.
Undoubtedly these proposals are producing great disquiet among ordinary constables in small boroughs because under this scheme a valued right will be taken away. In the county police the chief constable is the sole disciplinary authority; in the small borough it is the watch committee, and if the ordinary constable feels that the chief constable is harsh or unjust, he can make an appeal to the watch committee and have his grievance redressed. Once this Regulation is enforced that right of the ordinary borough constable to appeal to the watch committee will be eliminated altogether. In my opinion this is unfair.
Furthermore, I oppose the Regulation because it is another step towards bureaucratic control. There is a tendency to use the war as an excuse for increasing this control over private citizens and over their elected representatives on the borough councils. Whitehall is always reaching out its tentacles like an octupus. We go from Regulation to Regulation. Our lives are regulated, governed and controlled from day to day. There is no protest, because this is war-time, but we ought to resist, as far as it is possible, this increase of bureaucratic control over our councils and over our civic life unless there are much stronger reasons than those put forward in favour of these Regulations.

Mr. Messer: Why is amalgamation bureaucratic?

Major Procter: I will tell the hon. Member. The bureaucrats of Whitehall tried to get these proposals through in 1922 when there was no war. A Select Committee was set up to examine their suggestions, but nothing was done. The scheme was shelved. Whitehall Wants all the time the merging of small units into larger units which are more easily controlled. We see this happening in industry and trade. In the matter of Government contracts the little man is ignored. The large contractor is easier to deal with. Small industries are, by regulations, penalised in favour of large

monopolies. Now comes the merging of the small police force into the larger ones. So that they too may be more under the control of Whitehall.
Lastly, I oppose the Regulation because of this greatest of all dangers to a democratic country. These proposals, no matter how one may examine them, put into the hands of the Executive, and into the hands of one member of that Executive, who may be in the future a dictator, and without any limitation of any kind, a powerful force to carry out what may be his own will. The time may come, if it is not already upon us, to curb the growing power of the Home Office and not to increase this power, as is now proposed. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will not allow himself to be pushed along by the vis a tergo of his own officials. If he does so one day he may wake up and find that, in spite of his natural modesty and his strong and ardent democratic feelings, he has had thrust upon him through lack of Parliamentary vigilance, and in spite of his own disinclination, all the powers of a dictator in a democratic land.

Mr. Collindridge: In listening to the three speeches that have been made, it occurred to me that, in spite of all the things that are sometimes said on this side of the House concerning limitations on freedom of speech, those speeches illustrate how wonderfully free speech is in this country, and provide a reply to the reference made by the hon. Member who said that the Home Secretary is inflicting Gestapo-ism on this country. If there is one thing that convinces me that the Home Secretary should have the powers for which he now asks, it is those speeches, because of their parochialism. They remind me of the discussions that took place some 30 years ago in the part of the country where I live, when the small parish council there was discussing an amalgamation scheme with another council. The representatives of each of those small districts were concerned, with that innate conservatism which all of us seem to have, to retain their own little local identity as against the interests of the common weal. When the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) talked about the loss of position of some of the chief constables, he reminded me of those people who, to use a nautical metaphor, would rather be captain of a barge than third mate on an


ocean-going liner. I cannot see why, as long as this House remains as it is and there is the opportunity to make speeches of the tenor of those we have heard, these Regulations should cause any fears.
I have some views on this matter and there are one or two things on which I would like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to give some more information. We must not oppose this scheme in favour of outworn systems for which we ourselves are largely responsible. The hon. Member who moved the Prayer referred to some meetings of interested bodies in which the Home Secretary has taken part. Those meetings were all to the good. I was privileged to attend two of them. At the first meeting, at which the Home Secretary was not present, there was wholesale condemnation of the proposal and not one redeeming word was said about the Regulation. It is not to flatter the Home Secretary but merely to encourage him that I say that at the later meeting, an all-party meeting of Members of Parliament, which the Home Secretary attended and stated his case, a large percentage of the former opposition disappeared after the Home Secretary's explanations. I only hope that, if the Regulations are agreed to, the Home Secretary, before bringing forward a scheme, will have some talks with the people who are affected by the proposed merger. It is very often the case that in preliminary discussions before the die is finally cast, a great deal of agreement can be reached. Further, whatever may be said about the considerations that applied in 1932, we are now in an emergency. If we keep that thought to the front, that the Regulations have been brought forward as essentially a war measure, I think we shall carry a good many people along with us.
I want to devote myself to one aspect of it, the right of appeal in disciplinary cases. In the case of a borough police force, the disciplinary authority is vested in the watch committee. Any disciplinary award by the chief constable is subject to confirmation by the watch committee, and any member of the force who is aggrieved by an award of the chief constable has the right to appear before the watch committee. In a county police force the position is different. Disciplinary authority is vested in the chief constable, and against

an award by him there is no appeal, except to the Secretary of State, if a member of the force is dismissed or required to resign. Therefore, if a borough force is amalgamated with a county force, former members of the borough force will become subject to the disciplinary authority of the chief constable of the joint force, and they will have no right of appeal to the police authority. This is a point to which I know the police, and indeed a good many of us, attach much importance. The Select Committee on the Amalgamation of Police Forces, which reported in 1932, recommended that in such a case all members of the new joint force should have a right of appeal to the police authorities. I recognise that there may be difficulties in creating a right of appeal to the Standing Joint Committee of a county, since these committees have not hitherto been concerned with matters of discipline, and I recognise that committees of local authorities vary in their capacity for, and their success in dealing with, matters which in their nature involve a mixture of the judicial and the disciplinary. In fairness I must agree that such a system may perhaps work both ways, for and against the interests of the police.
I would ask my right hon. Friend that, this being essentially a war measure, the police to be merged should have their right of appeal continued. I think we ought to grant in a large way the right of appeal to those who absorb and to those who are merged. It would be a big gesture. If this could not be done so fully as I suggest, might I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether something should not be done by an extension of the Police Appeals Act? That Act provides for an appeal to the Secretary of State, in the case either of a county or a borough constable, against a decision to dismiss a man or to require him to resign. If the Act were extended so as to provide an appeal against the serious punishment of reduction in rank, or in the rate of pay, it would go a long way to meet the difficulty. I hope the House will feel inclined to recommend that some change of that description should take place. If, however, this proposal is not generally acceptable, I suggest that a provision should be inserted in these Regulations giving an extended right of appeal to the Secretary of State in any case where an Order is made for the amalgamation of a borough with a county force.
Whatever variance there may have been in the distant past between the police and the public in industrial districts, we folk in public life in those areas now see an atmosphere between the two which is splendid and all to the good. We owe a debt of gratitude to our policemen. They have been steadfast and true to the communal weal in these dark days through which we are passing. It would not be in keeping with the high ideals with which we are fighting this war to take away a liberty now enjoyed by the police force. Here is an opportunity to issue a small instalment of that brave new world that we say we are to have after the war. Can we be big enough to give to all members of the force, whether in counties or in boroughs, the elementary right to which we say all Britons are entitled, the right of appeal? This Debate will have served a useful purpose if public attention has been, if only for a short time, focussed on this important question, and I hope the Home Secretary can help us in the matter.

General Sir George Jeffreys (: I listened with great interest to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Prayer, but I was very little persuaded by their arguments. The Orders against which it is directed are war measures for the facilitation of naval, military and air operations. I should think that in itself is sufficient justification for putting them into force. A special reason for them is the necessity of simplying the task of military commanders, especially Allied military commanders, who do not understand our system of local government and our system of police.
We shall have in the not far distant future Allied military commanders in this country in a position in which it will be necessary for them to have touch with and in certain circumstances to give instructions to the police. By lessening the number of police chiefs with whom they have to deal there is no doubt that their task will be appreciably simplified. I do not think that the task would be simplified by the means suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), that they should deal with them through a regional inspector of constabulary. Military commanders will want in cases of emergency, and in many other cases as well, to deal with the police chiefs themselves. If there are a large number of police chiefs and if the area of their

responsibility is, as it is in many cases, very ill-defined and indeterminate, it will make the task of the military commanders, especially if they are strangers to the country, much more difficult than it would be otherwise.
Apart from that, I believe that there are certain disadvantages connected with small forces. When we speak of small forces, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton that it is a little difficult to know from the terms of this Order how small the forces are which are to be affected. Perhaps the Home Secretary will give us more particulars about that. Speaking generally, small forces, in spite of what some of my hon. Friends have said, have seldom the same standard of efficiency as larger forces, for a variety of reasons. In a small force of comparatively few men it is only natural that the chief or head constable will be hardly of the calibre of the chief or head constable of a large and more important force. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the big man Will not apply for a position in which he has much smaller responsibility, much less scope and much less pay. For the same reason there is not the same opportunity of promotion, and the ambitious and clever young man is less likely to enter a small force than a bigger force where there are greater opportunities of promotion. There are not the same facilities in the nature of things for training in a small force, and in few cases can a small force have anything of a criminal investigation department. Where there are two big forces in a small area, as, for instance, in the case of some county towns, where there are the headquarters of the county police and the borough police and where the police areas have ill-defined boundaries, there is often doubt and confusion as to which force should deal with matters that may arise in the vicinity of the boundary, and there is often overlapping.
An important consideration is the principal work of the police, which is the prevention of crime, and that is better carried out on the whole by the larger and better equipped forces. In the case of undetected crime or crime in which the accused cannot be immediately apprehended, it is left to the discretion of the local police whether assistance should be invited from a larger neighbour or even from Scotland Yard; and as the essence


of detection is immediate action, the chance of the apprehension of an offender is often lost by delay while the local man is considering whether he shall deal with the matter or hand it to a larger authority. In a county town where the county police headquarters are there may be a small borough force over which the county chief constable has no authority. I will give an instance of this within my own knowledge. About a year before the war there was a serious motor accident, in which four cars were involved and persons were injured, a short distance outside a county town. A neighbouring resident was asked to telephone the police, and as in the telephone book there are two police forces, he unfortunately telephoned to the wrong one, the borough police. These, being anxious to show their zeal and activity, did not say, "This does not concern us," did not inform the county police but motored to the scene, only to say on arrival that they were very sorry, it seemed to be a serious business, but they could not act. That resulted in delay in taking statements, which was inconvenient. I suggest that the same thing might easily have happened in a case of serious crime where immediate action was of the utmost importance.
Then there is the question of control by watch committees. I would with great diffidence suggest that the borough aldermen and councillors are not always the most suitable persons to control a disciplined force. The powers of watch committees are much greater than the powers of standing joint committees. Without the consent of the watch committee no man in a borough force can be sent to assist a neighbouring force in any difficulty or emergency. This might be a very important matter under conditions of invasion or air raids. Under the present system of a number of forces of varying size there is apt to be a diversity of police methods. That is undesirable as between forces in areas close together, and amalgamation would undoubtedly tend to lessen such diversities. It may be argued, as it has been argued by some of my hon. Friends, that these amalgamations, although they are temporary and for the war period, are likely to become permanent after the war. If the scheme is found to be unsuccessful in practice, I cannot imagine that any Government will wish to continue it, but if, as I believe

will be the case, it is found to make for greater efficiency and also, by elimination of overheads, for greater economy, then there will be at any rate a strong case for its continuation; and I cannot see the difficulties which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton either in continuing it if it is thought necessary or in discontinuing it if it is found that in practice it has been a failure. I would say, as has already been mentioned by two of my hon. Friends, that the Report of the Select Committee of 1932 should not be left out of consideration. That Committee recommended most strongly amalgamations, although that recommendation was never acted on.
I know that one argument against amalgamations, as well as against anything more ambitious, is that local control would disappear, but local control, in the case of a standing joint committee, does not include control over discipline or duties of the police. It comprises only administration, finance and the responsibility of a chief constable to the standing joint committee for the efficiency of the force, and that, I agree, is a very important responsibility. That seems to me to be a sufficient degree of local control, and the joint authorities to be set up under the Order will presumably have at least these powers, and the areas of amalgamated forces will have representations on these joint authorities. It seems to me that local interest and local connection, both of which are, I agree, very important measures, and some measure of local control, will thus be preserved, and it is to my mind both unnecessary and undesirable that any police authority should have powers as regards discipline, and I include powers of deciding appeals against disciplinary action. It seems to me that disciplinary powers are especially undesirable in cases of watch committees and small forces, where, possibly, local friendships, local antipathies, local gossip and even local matters that may be mentioned at local elections may influence a committee in its decisions. Appeals should be in the first instance to the chief constable, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) that right of appeal might well be extended and enlarged. Next I would suggest that possibly there might be a place for the regional inspector of police as regards the


hearing of appeals, and that he might come between the chief constable and the final appeal to the Home Office. In conclusion, I believe that these Orders are not only necessary but long overdue, and I trust that the Prayer of my hon. Friends in this case may not be granted.

Mr. Shinwell: I have been asked by my hon. Friends behind me to extend general support to the Home Secretary and against the Motion. There have been occasions within the recollection of my right hon. Friend when some of us on these benches have ventured to differ from some of his proposals, because we have thought that he was seeking to exceed his powers, but on this occasion, when it appears to be his sole purpose to act consistently with the effective war effort, we can do no other than give him our support. I have listened to the Debate from the beginning, and I confess to some surprise at the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite. I have frequently heard them plead for unified strategy, unified war effort, and co-ordination in production and in this and that, yet they boggle at the amalgamation of a police force. That seems to me to be straining at the flea and swallowing the elephant, a singularly foolish procedure.
I noted that the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), who made an excellent speech, so far as delivery was concerned, although I could not agree with its substance, said that he had no objection to amalgamation, provided it was deferred until after the war. If amalgamations have any virtue, it is better to have them at this juncture.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In a constitutional way.

Mr. Shinwell: This is the critical time. I do not propose to discuss the merits that amalgamation may have in peacetime. I believe there is always merit in amalgamation, particularly in modern times. There is advantage in amalgamation of all our Forces now, whatever they may be, police, Civil Defence, military, naval or Air Force. I frequently hear hon. Members opposite demanding some of these things. I quite understand the hon. Member for Southampton being apprehensive lest Southampton should be included. No doubt the same observation applies to the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). Suppose the Home

Secretary said to them in reply, "I propose to proceed with the Regulations, but Southampton and Ilford will be excluded"; that would remove their apprehension. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In effect, their case is, "Do what you like with the small fellows but don't touch us."
In following the case presented, I have been at pains to understand what is behind it. What are hon. Members concerned about? The hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter), who is absent at this moment, said that this proposal would damage the police. How can amalgamation of police forces damage the police? How can it weaken the police? It cannot weaken the effectiveness of the individual policeman. I have some experience of policemen, both local and county, and I have never detected any difference in their weapons, their language, their forthrightness or their courtesy. They are pretty much the same, whether they are local or county. I cannot see any substance in the suggestion that by promoting these Regulations the police will be weakened; I can see a case to show that the police would be very much strengthened. It has been suggested that we might, as an alternative to these Regulations, co-ordinate various small police forces under the chief constable of a county. Mark that the suggestion has come from hon. Members opposite. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to stir up local strife than a proposal of that kind. We have had plenty of trouble about chief constables in the past, but if you proceed to put a number of small police forces, without regulation, without scientific adjustment as is proposed in the Regulation, without concerning yourselves with pension rights and various other rights, if it is done in a loose rule-of-thumb fashion, a haphazard fashion, by putting a number of these police forces under the chief constable of a county or anywhere else, I am certain that that will lead to more trouble than the House desires.
It has also been suggested that really there is nothing wrong with the existing police arrangements. I do not at all demur from that. The police are an excellent body of men, the smaller groups of policemen just as are the larger groups. But let us assume the probability—and I use that term advisedly, because it has


been suggested by the Government themselves—of invasion in any part of this country; will anyone suggest that it is not as important to have a highly organised and efficient body of policemen under a single authority, at any rate in a particular area, as it is to have a military organisation completely unified, and to have liaison between that unified police authority and the unified military authority? It is of the highest importance that that should be achieved, and I should like to see the faces of some of my hon. Friends opposite in the event of invasion if, in any part of the country, they found the police at loggerheads with the military forces, or in a position where they could not be effectively organised for the purposes of controlling the processes associated with evacuation, with the transfer of the civil population. I venture to put this to my hon. Friends opposite, that one of the purposes for which a police force is required, both in peace-time and in war-time, and particularly in the event of invasion, is to direct the road traffic. After all, that cannot be left entirely in the hands of a small police force. There have to be some instructions, some coordination in order to ensure that the instructions emanate from headquarters, and they they are properly carried out.

Sir P. Hannon: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there will be military direction of road traffic?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, there will be military direction of road traffic, but, after all, all these partly civil matters or semi-military matters cannot be left entirely in the hands of the military, not because they cannot carry them out efficiently, but because they have other very important work to undertake. I am not so sure that I put the matter as correctly as I should. The military are efficient, but the police are extremely efficient when it comes to dealing with road traffic and matters of transportation. From that standpoint I cannot agree with my hon. Friends opposite.
I wish to come to what I think is the point of real substance in this, and which appears to have aroused apprehension in the minds of my hon. Friends opposite. It was voiced, I think, by the hon. Member for Southampton and the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington, who was perhaps a little more vehement

in the matter. He said, "What is all this going to lead to? A national police force, dictatorship, bureaucracy." I can understand that these possibilities arouse apprehension. I am very glad to note that my hon. Friends opposite have made up their minds there can be no dictatorship in this country. I take note of that. It is on the record. I also note that they are averse to bureaucratic methods. I have taken part in public life for some considerable time, and I have not noticed in the past that my hon. Friends opposite were unduly troubled about bureaucratic methods in any Government Departments. It was only when there was an advance in certain social directions that they became disturbed about bureaucracy. Of course, there is red tape. I have been in Government Departments, and I have tried to break it down, sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully, but I doubt whether there is any real substance in all these complaints about bureaucracy in Government Departments.
There is another apparent allegation. I hope I am incorrect in this assumption, but I seemed to see in what hon. Members opposite were saying a suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wants to be a dictator. I have quarrelled with my right hon. Friend often enough —I may do so to-day—but I want to pay tribute to the administrative abilities of my right hon. Friend. He is as fine an administrator as we have had. He knows his job. Sometimes I do not like his methods and his tactics—he does not like mine— but, as for my right hon. Friend looking ahead and envisaging a great national police force which he is going to use as his instrument, that is absurd; it is fantastic; if is grotesque.

Major Procter: I never suggested that my right hon. Friend would ever be a dictator. I carefully excluded him from it. What I said was that we were making it possible for a would-be dictator to have an instrument at his hand to carry out the will of the Executive.

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. and gallant Friend did not envisage my right hon. Friend as a possible dictator, I do not know whom he had in mind. Perhaps it was me. That would be a more likely assumption. I want to be quite frank with hon. Members on both sides of the House. I say that in this war, if I had


had my way there would have been more dictation. This is a digression for which I hope, Sir, that you will forgive me; but very early in this war I wanted industrial compulsion, and I wanted compulsion all round. In war you have to be ruthless. In peace-time it is different. Liberties must be preserved in peace-time, and individual characteristics safeguarded. But in war, when you have your backs to the wall, when you are facing a ruthless enemy, it is very different. We have had an example of that in the last few hours, one might almost say, in the manacling of our men. I say to my right hon. Friend that in that situation he is not ruthless, enough. When he comes forward with this modest proposal, this puny thing, he immediately stirs up a hornet's nest. Why?
Let us examine that question; but first let me say this to hon. Members opposite, "What do you think the Home Secretary has in mind?" He says, "I want to facilitate military, naval and air coordination by these proposals." He is satisfied that it cannot be effectively undertaken in any other way. What other reason can he have? After all, it is only making him more unpopular; and really, with the best will in the world towards my hon. Friends, and perhaps hardly the best will in the world towards my right hon. Friend, I am bound to say that I cannot believe that he would want to advance these proposals to create more unpopularity for himself. He is doing something that he believes to be necessary. Now I come to hon. Members. What is behind their position? I do not think that it is fear of beaurocracy or dictatorship. It may be perhaps a little fear of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that it is even that. The trouble in this country is that we have created vested interests all over the place; the whole country is cluttered with vested interests.

Major Petherick: Including the trade unions.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) refers to trade unions. He is not even the friend of the workers. But let us not get into controversy. I did not start it. There are vested interests in the country. You can afford vested interests in peace-time but not in war. Vested interests wherever they are, whether of a

single policeman or a chief constable or a Government Department—and even hon. Members have their own vested conceptions of how society should be run—have to be struck down. I have to say, looking at this thing quite objectively—and I have an open mind on the matter—that the House should support the right hon. Gentleman. Do my hon. Friends opposite propose to wait until an emergency eventuates before taking effective action? Is not that a fair question to put?

Mr. Hutchinson: I endeavoured to make clear in my speech that the authorities which are concerned would not oppose any measures that my right hon. Friend considers necessary to secure the operational control for which he is asking.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that is a complete acceptance of my right hon. Friend's position. I am not accustomed to the courts, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, except in a certain capacity, but I am bound to say that if that is the case of my hon. and learned Friend opposite, and if my right hon. Friend comes in a departmental capacity, having taken counsel of those who understand the problem, and being fortified by the Government themselves, and says, "This is the only thing I can do in order to promote efficiency in the conduct of police organisation in war-time," I do not see what objection could be offered. We cannot afford to wait until an emergency envelops and overwhelms us and strikes us down before taking effective action. It is far better to act in advance. I would say to all hon. Friends it has been a constant theme of Debates in this House on almost every occasion, at any rate on first-class Debates and matters of governmental policy affecting the war, that we should always anticipate the possibilities and probabilities. How often have we said that the Government have been too late, six months, a year or two years too late? My right hon. Friend, I hope, will not be too late in the step he is now taking, and I hope that the House will fortify and encourage him in the proposals contained therein.

Mr. Beechman: I often feel that there is insufficient appreciation of the immense services which have been rendered to the community, especially during the war, by local authorities, large and small. My hon. Friend the Member


for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has talked about vested interests. After all, what are vested interests? It is only a terra for institutions that we happen to dislike. I feel sure that my hon. Friend would not consider that local authorities were vested interests that ought to be swept away. They have been very successful on the whole precisely because of their intimate association with the localities and people concerned. To-day we are considering a matter which is concerned with defence. In making the observations I do in connection with local authorities, I am, of course, considering them in that aspect. It is clear from the Regulation itself that this is a question of defence, and it should be noted in this House and should be recollected by the Home Secretary—as I am sure it will—that he cannot carry out an amalgamation as proposed in this Regulation unless he is satisfied that it is necessary for facilitating naval, military or Air Force operations. Therefore, it is not possible to consider in this connection considerations which might be put forward by planners and other people who, perhaps rightly, concern themselves with blueprints for the future. In this Regulation planners, by Order-in-Council, are excluded.
The considerations which actuated the mind of the Commission, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) referred, cannot be taken into account by the Home Secretary in carrying out the proposals herein contained. I hope the Home Secretary and his Department will bear closely in mind the fact that it is only upon the considerations set out in this paragraph that the matter can be set in motion, and I trust that the military authorities will bear in mind that they can only make representations on purely Service grounds. I am sure that if boroughs thought that for military reasons these amalgamations should take place in order to help in the prosecution of the war, they would feel that these considerations were paramount and that local susceptibilities and local convenience should be set aside. Unfortunately, they are not wholly so convinced, and it is not surprising, for three years of war have gone by, and it is only now that these proposals are brought forward.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham said it was very necessary that we should have these arrangements in case of an invasion, but if it is necessary now, how very necessary it must have been in those critcial days after Dunkirk, Local authorities realise that at that time no such measure was brought forward. It is suggested that from a military point of view matters may be disposed of more swiftly if some amalgamations proceed. I believe that may be so on occasion, and for that reason I would hesitate to refuse the Home Secretary his powers. But I am very anxious that each case should be considered on its merits. In passing, I should acknowledge the courtesy and consideration that have been shown by the Home Secretary in this matter. Like others, I have received an assurance that in each case boroughs will be allowed and enabled to make representations. I attach very great importance to this, and I trust the boroughs who are in danger of having their police force taken will be allowed to make their representations fully to the Home Secretary himself, and that it will not be a perfunctory matter of a funeral oration which a borough is to make before its police force is destroyed.
Finally, there is the question of finance. I notice that in the Regulations there is plenty of provision for taking away the funds of the boroughs whose police forces it is sought to amalgamate, but I cannot find any provision to safeguard the boroughs concerned against having to pay more in the future under the new arrangement. I should have been delighted to see some safeguard in that direction. The time is getting short, but I hope the Home Secretary will do his best to meet not only local susceptibilities which are deep-set, but will hesitate to overturn, unless the clearest case is made out on military grounds, processes of public administration which, after all, have been extremely well tried.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am very grateful to the House for the good temper with which it has discussed this matter, which is admittedly somewhat contentious. It has been a good Debate and I have listened to all of it. I was, of course, familiar with the arguments of the local authorities, at any rate, as a result of my having met deputations of the Association of Municipal Corporations


and the County Councils Association before the Regulations were made. I say that because I think there was some misunderstanding about it.

Mr. Hutchinson: Not the Non-County Boroughs Association. They were not invited to meet my right hon. Friend before the Regulations were made, although he was good enough to receive a deputation after the Regulations had been made.

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, I would not say that they are the people mainly concerned. There are other police authorities besides the non-county boroughs, and I would add that I had little doubt as to what their views were. That is why, in the first instance, I met the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. Subsequently, the Non-County Boroughs Association, headed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), wished to see me with the Association of Municipal Corporations. I met them together, and that meeting was actually a few days after the Regulations were made. I was very glad to see them, as, indeed, I am always glad to meet deputations of local authorities; if on this occasion they were headed by two Members of Parliament who are not themselves members of local authorities, that did not reduce my pleasure, although perhaps it made it a little more difficult for the local authorities to do a deal, because the Members of Parliament did not feel quite that way and the local authorities did not either. I was delighted to hear the arguments of the local authorities and to put my arguments to them, although unfortunately, no doubt owing to my lack of persuasive and expository powers, I did not persuade the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Non-County Boroughs Association that I was right. I think it is the case that the County Councils Association asquiesced in the Regulations, although it is only fair to add that they have perhaps more to gain than the others have.
I think it would be better if in my remarks I deal with the principles which are involved, but I should like first to express to hon. Members my appreciation of the ability with which the case has been put. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) opened the Debate and put the case with very great

clarity for the Association of Municipal Corporations, as did the hon. and learned Member for Ilford on behalf of the Non-County Boroughs Association. Ilford, of course, cannot be affected by the Regulations because it is already in the Metropolitan Police district, and that perhaps is a testimony to the disinterestedness of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the matter. Nevertheless it is appropriate that he should take this line, because the Corporation of Ilford has a rather long isolationist tradition in local government. I believe it was the only tramway municipal undertaking in Greater London which would not have through running with any other undertaking, and their lack of virtue was rewarded by the fact that it was the only undertaking which made a profit out of municipal tramways in Greater London in the ordinary conventional sense of the term. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) made rather an impassioned speech, and I was very glad to have his repudiation of the assumption of the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) that he had been openly suspecting or implying that I had tendencies towards dictatorship and says that that never crossed his mind. I am greatly relieved that that should be so, because I was getting a bit apprehensive myself. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made his speech with vigour and clearness; I was very glad to hear his contribution, and he may be sure that his points will be kept in mind. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) put a very reasoned case with great ability, with regard to the different disciplinary position in the boroughs compared with the counties, and I shall be referring to this point later. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), who speaks with great knowledge of county government and local administration, as well as with military experience, produced what I thought was a completely convincing case for the Regulations, and I am grateful to him for his persuasive support.
I am specially grateful for the very competent, eloquent, logical and valuable support of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham. I have often heard him making speeches, and have listened to them perhaps with especial care, during the period of office of the present Government, and I have varying opinions about


them. I do not wish to say anything about those speeches of the past one way or the other. Why should I? I have nothing to complain about to-day at all. But I should like to say that this was a first-class speech. It was admirable, and if he will continue to make speeches of that order in support of the Government, he will not only be kept out of trouble but his stock will rise and his reputation will advance without limit towards the skies. I give this undertaking, that if I should ever be a member of a disciplinary tribunal, whether a watch committee or a standing joint committee or otherwise, he will be perfectly entitled to say, as I know he will, "You may condemn me. You may say I have kicked over the traces. But I would remind you that there was an occasion when I supported the Government, and I was thanked and praised publicly in Parliament." I promise my hon. Friend that no point of Order shall be raised against any such plea so far as I am concerned. The Debate was ended so far as the critics were concerned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), who wanted to know why I had only just wakened up, so to speak, after three years. This was a fair point, which I will come to in due course. He wanted to know in particular whether I would deal with these matters on the merits of the case and give the local authorities an opportunity of advancing their arguments and give them consideration. I will also come to that in due course.
I propose to deal with the limited number of administrative and other principles which are involved in the making of these Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham said in answer to the critics, "Why should the Home Secretary want to do this out of pure perverse-ness? It involves trouble for him, it involves criticism, and it involves controversy. Surely the reasonable deduction to draw from the situation is that the Home Secretary must have been convinced that it was necessary or desirable to make these Regulations in the public interest." That is the simple truth about it. I know that in Parliamentary Debate hon. Members sometimes look for hidden motives and sometimes even for naughty motives. I do not complain because I have often done it myself in other and less responsible days.
The local authorities are suspicious. They are suspicious that there is a conspiracy on the part of the officers of the Home Office to do what they have wanted to do for a long time. Believe me, there is no such conspiracy on their part and there is no perverseness on my part in wishing to do this. As far as civil servants are concerned, they, poor people, suffer from two accusations. One is that they are always conspiring to make their Ministers do terribly bureaucratic and tyrannical things, and the other, by way of contradiction, condemns civil servants for always holding their Ministers back from doing the bold and clear-cut things. What I expect from civil servants is what I get—honest advice and loyal service, and it is my responsibility when a decision is taken. I knew that when this decision was taken it might be controversial and troublesome and that I would be on the spot, so to speak, again. I do not want to add to my troubles. I am never short of them. Nobody can be, in the Departments I serve. The Home Office and Ministry of Home Security are troublesome Departments. The corridors are paved with dynamite, and any Minister occupying these offices is liable to be blown up at any moment. It is part of the attraction of the office; it is always a great adventure, for you may come to an end before you know where you are. There is always trouble. I have plenty of trouble at the moment. There is fire prevention, which is more trouble than everything else combined. Why should I look for more? I do not look for trouble; it looks for me, and it finds me. It is only because I was convinced that it was necessary and desirable in the public interest that these Regulations have been made, and I now defend them before the House and commend them to the House.
Let me tell the House frankly why the Regulations were made. I will first endeavour to deal with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives as to why I have waited for three years before making the Regulation. I am not proud of the fact that we have waited three years. I think we ought to have done it before, but there was plenty to do, plenty to bother about; and I suppose that on the balance of considerations we felt that the case was not quite strong enough to make it worth while causing all


the friction involved. Then came the great American Armies, which added to the difficulty of having a needlessly large number of police forces, and that was the final straw, so to speak, though it was much more than a straw, which decided me that we must make our police administration as simple as possible.
Here is the military case as far as I can state it in public. Invasion remains a possibility. I know that there are people who laugh about invasion and say, "What are you talking about? You know it will never happen." We do not know that it will never happen. It might happen. It might happen of itself, and it might happen as a repercussion of offensive operations—we do not know. It is one of the factors we have to take into account. As I have said all through about Civil Defence, our business is to be ready, and I say that in the case of invasion, that with all the difficulties that it would involve, as pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite and others, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field, with his military knowledge, the simpler the police organisation the better, because the military will want a lot of service out of the police, and they will want a fairly uniform policy to be followed on the part of the police. They will want reliability out of the police, because it is not the case that in times of stress involving the civil population generals and other military officers want to run the civil show as well as the military show. They do not.
I used to have an idea that the great danger from the soldiers was that they would grab the civil administration and take hold of the civil machine. I know more about the soldiers now. I have seen quite a lot of them, and they do not want to do that. On the contrary, they like to be clear of the civil machine if they can, in the sense that they expect and want the civil machine to do certain things. They want the civil machine to do it, and not for the military to be bothered with matters of civil administration which they do not understand too well and are frank enough to say so. The military want to be able to say to the police, to the Civil Defence authorities, to the local authorities or to the regional officers of the Government Departments, "We should like so and so done," and then forget it, knowing that

those authorities will do it. The military ought not to be bothered with having to know, for example, whether the county police force and the small borough police forces within a county are really marching together. They ought to be able to assume that once their wishes have been communicated and the police have said, "All right, we will take care of that," that it will be taken care of, without having to worry whether one police force is going to do it in one way and another police force in another.
At no time is that more important than in the case of an invasion, but it is also important where there are accumulations of large numbers of troops, and it is important in relation to possible offensive military operations. That would involve counter-offensive measures, and there again it is necessary that the relationships between the civil police forces and the military organisation shall be of the most comprehensive and simple character that is reasonably practicable. With the coming of the great American Armies we have in this country large numbers of people used to a different Constitution and different systems of public administration. They are bound to have many relationships with the police, because they are living in the midst of our civil population and they want help from our civil institutions and civic authorities. Is it not obvious that the less complicated our police organisation is in relation to the American Army authorities the better it will be? The American Army authorities are not going to move in accordance with civic boundaries. I want them to be dealing with civic authorities that have a high level of direction and responsibility and with whom there will not be undue complications.
Finally, in war-time, espionage is one of the things which we have to guard against, and I have a duty and responsibilities, in that respect, not only by virtue of my general responsibilities as Home Secretary, but by virtue of the special responsibilities that have been placed upon me by the Defence Regulations and Acts of Parliament. Sometimes I want delicate inquiries made. At all times I want to know as far as I can what is happening in the matter of possible espionage. I do not want a thing to happen and then only to know about it months afterwards; I would sooner know at the time, or before it actually happens.
With all the good will in the world, I join in singing the praises of the little forces, and of the policemen and the chief constables of the small police forces; I have nothing to say against them, within the limitations of their numbers and their responsibility. They are conscientious and public-spirited and have done a good job of work. In time of peace it is a nice, interesting argument whether they ought to be abolished or not; but we are not in time of peace. I shall not define these small police forces in numbers, because I do not want to get into the same kind of argument as was involved in the reference to 25 policemen which was made earlier. I shall not get into that field, because if I do, I shall be lost. A small police force cannot carry a competent and efficient C.I.D. or special branch, and they cannot be expected to be as alive as I want them to be on these espionage dangers. I have had one or two such cases, and the police did very well. They did their best, but I must point out that, in time of war, in areas where leakage of military information may be a matter of the most disastrous consequences to the Army, Navy and Air Force and to the nation's war effort, it is not right that Members of this House should seek to put before the big national interests the mere—[An HON. MEMBER: "Parochial."]—I am trying to find the right word if I can—the at times excessive civic pride of local government.
I like civic pride. I have done my best to build civic pride in this city in which we are meeting, not, I think, altogether without success. The little authorities may be proud of themselves. I do not complain when they say, as they all do, that they had the best fire brigade in the country. I am sure they had. I do not complain. I like it, because it is good for our civic government; but sometimes there are hon. Members of this House who, if they receive a letter from a town clerk conveying a resolution of a local authority, begin, a little needlessly, to tremble at the knees. I can assure them that they do not need to do so. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) has been having a little argument locally with the head of the civic authority of his very great city.

Skr P. Hannon: Under the most pleasant conditions.

Mr. Morrison: I am very glad that is so. I like to hear of the Lord Mayor having the utmost pleasantness and extending it to others as well. My hon. Friend was right. I read the case through carefully. He delicately hinted that he was being rather hauled over the coals for not automatically doing in this House what the Corporation of Birmingham asked. The answer was: We pay the very greatest respect to the views of the Corporation of Birmingham, but, as Members of Parliament, we must function as representatives of the nation, concerned with the interests of the nation primarily and above all. I suggest that that is the proper attitude for Members of this House. Sometimes local authorities think that Members of Parliament ought to do what the local authority asks them to do, but I have never taken that attitude as a municipal administrator, and I would never submit to it as a Member of this House. I hope nobody else would submit. A municipality is elected to do its job, and we are elected to do ours. We must stand on our own feet and discharge our duties to the nation.
In detecting espionage, it may be convenient to use the police or convenient to use other services. I want to be free to use either. Those are the reasons for these Regulations. Moreover, the Regulations are limited in their scope. A case could be made out, as has been submitted to-day, on the ground that, if anything, we are a bit too shy and nervous about this proposal, and not bold enough. I did not think I ought to make Regulations which gave me powers beyond what I thought necessary for the prosecution of the war; that is to say, I did not want to take advantage of the war situation in order to get away with a policy which has been the subject of controversy in peace-time. Consequently, the Regulations say that the Secretary of State may do these things,
if he is satisfied that the amalgamation is necessary for facilitating naval, military or air force operations,
and I will have to be satisfied. It must not be thought that the Home Secretary will ignore these qualifying words. His able officers will write them on every minute that comes up in connection with a proposed case of amalgamation. They will insist on saying why in one case these considerations apply and in another they


do not. The Home Secretary who proceeds to forget those words which will be thrown at him on the file will know that he is really setting aside the purpose of these Regulations, and it will not be long before he is found out. Consequently, the Regulations are confined in terms to matters of Army, Navy or Air Force significance in connection with the prosecution of the war. I must be so confined in the administration of the Regulations, and I give every undertaking, if that is necessary, that I will certainly be bound by this consideration, and I will only use these Regulations in connection with the successful prosecution of the war.
I come to some of the arguments which have been used in the course of the Debate by various hon. Members. It is said that it is most important there shall be a very local association between the police and the public, what used to be called in Poor Law administration the local touch, which was often a good name and stated the case. I understand the argument about local association and the local touch. I am not proposing the policy of— a national police force. I am—at any rate as yet—not convinced it would be right. Administratively, I could do with the police what the House has permitted me to do with the Fire Service, and make a first-class administrative job of it. But, frankly, I am not convinced it would be right. I think that there are strong objections to a single national police force in the hands of the Home Office, objections from the point of view of civil liberty and otherwise, and I certainly do not propose to do anything of the kind.
Personally, up to now, I believe that an association of some sort of the police with local government is right, healthy and proper, and therefore I assure the House that in going forward with these Regulations I am not in the least inspired by a desire to move towards a national police force. But do not let us run the local association argument too far. After all, a county council is a local authority, and the standing joint committee covers the administrative county. It is a form of local authority, it has local responsibilities, with local representatives. On the standing joint committee half are members of the county council and half are justices of quarter sessions. I suggest that running the argument down to the very

small local authority is to run to extremes what is ordinarily a good argument.
Here in London we have the Metropolitan Police, which is not even a local authority force at all. It is a police force directed by the Home Secretary, for which I am responsible through the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, here is a national force in London with a vast area and a greater number of policemen than any other police force in the country. There is no local touch in the ordinary local authority sense of the term, but the Metropolitan Police Force is amazingly popular. It has an extraordinary contact with its local public. Every mayor knows the local police superintendent; so does the town clerk; so do the other officers. There is an interlock between the police and Civil Defence in action whenever it is wanted.
I know the popularity of the Metropolitan Police—State police though it is— from bitter experience. In the municipal programme of the London Labour Party we used regularly to include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) will remember, the municipalisation of the Metropolitan Police. I made the most fervent and indignant speeches about London having a State police force foisted upon it, for which London paid its 50 per cent., the same as any other local authority in the country, and yet had not twopennyworth of control over it. I said it was a scandal, and the Commissioner should be cleared out. It was all very well, but I could not get the people to be indignant about it. To be perfectly frank, I could not get any flow on the thing at all in the municipal elections. After three elections, I said to the executive, "Ladies and Gentlemen, you had better drop this; there is nothing in it. I will not say it is a liability, but it is not an asset, and it goes cold. Maybe there will be Labour Governments soon, and it will be good for us to have our own police force in Whitehall." So we washed it out. If there is a police force which, in the classical sense, is bureaucratically run, it is the Metropolitan Police force, with a nominated Commissioner, who has his officials under him. If ever there was a bureaucratic instrument of police administration, there it is; yet I venture to say there is not a more popular police force


to be found, not only in this country, but in the whole of the civilised world. Therefore, do not run this local argument too far, because it does not stand up too well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley referred to the difference—and it was in part referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton—between the disciplinary procedure of a watch committee and that of a standing joint committee. May I shortly explain the position—which my hon. Friend did with great ability and clarity—just to remind the House? In a borough the watch committee, and not the Chief Constable, is the disciplinary authority. If the chief constable wants to discipline a man, he must report to the watch committee. The man has a right to appear, and the watch committee decides, so to speak, between the man and the chief constable. In the case of a county the chief constable himself is the disciplinary authority, and the standing joint committee has no jurisdiction. Some of the standing joint committees would like jurisdiction similar to that of the watch committees, or something between the two. The watch committees do not want to lose their disciplinary authority. This is another troublesome problem that I suppose I ought to be seeing to, in a bold and decisive way, but I do not know whether it is necessary at this juncture to have one system, and the choice between the two systems is very difficult.
I have been connected with local government for a long time, and I say, from my experience on the London County Council, which has a good deal of quasi-disciplinary business, and a very good machine, with a good legal department, very good advisers and a long tradition in handling these things, that it was a strain to keep the committees straight in handling very delicate judicial matters. It is not an easy task for the average committee of the average local authority. I would be very hesitant to recommend an extension of the watch committee system to the counties. On the other hand, I am bound to admit that, to the ordinary policeman, it is a bit tall that the chief constable should be the single disciplinary authority subject to that sole right of appeal, namely, in a case of dismissal or enforced resignation. This is rather tall and it is one of those cases in which one is torn between two ideas. If the chief constable becomes foolish in a county, it

becomes known and appropriate action is taken. Personally, I am in the hands of the House. The only thing about which I am apprehensive is that if I do what I want to do about this thing, the watch committees may feel that I am taking away part of their authority by allowing an extended right of appeal to the Secretary of State. But from the point of view of the policeman, he would be undoubtedly better off and could not be worse off if he had an extended right of appeal.
What I would like to do, if it commends itself to the House—because I cannot bring in controversial matters which are not essential to the prosecution of the war—is to bring in a short Bill or Defence Regulation, to give the policemen two further rights, in the case of reduction in rank or reduction in rate of pay, as well as in the case of dismissal or enforced resignation, of appeal to the Secretary of State, both in the case of the boroughs and in the case of the counties. If it is too controversial and I cannot introduce a Bill, I will favourably consider what can be done by Defence Regulation in the case of the amalgamated forces. I prefer to make a clean job, and if it is not controversial, I am disposed to do it, and the policemen themselves would like it. I recently went to the annual conference of the Police Federation, where they had a long string of troubles, and they were not too forthcoming on most of them, unfortunately; but I asked them about this, and I said that I would be glad to have the views of the Police Federation, representing the policemen, as it was most important that I should know the views of the rank and file of the police service about it. They passed this resolution:
That this Conference respectfully asks the Secretary of State to favourably consider causing the Police Discipline Act, 1927, to be amended so as to provide the right of appeal by a member of any police force to the Secretary of State against a reduction in rate of pay or a reduction in rank.
Therefore, if as would appear it commends itself to the House and to the police—and I must consult my colleagues —I will do my best to bring forward proposals of the kind which my hon. Friend so clearly put.
There were one or two assurances that I was asked to give. One was whether I would continue the process of consultation


with the local authorities. I give to the House this assurance. After this Debate, assuming I still stand up and all is well— and indeed, I hope it may not be necessary for the House to have a Division if it can be avoided—J will, if it is proposed to make an Order, consult the local authorities concerned before such an Order is made. I may not be able to see them personally. They will appreciate that it would be too much to ask, but I shall know what we propose to do before any move is made at all, and I will instruct senior officers of the Department to meet the authorities concerned and convey to me faithfully the arguments and views of these local authorities. I will consider those views and arguments very carefully and come to a conclusion in the light of the facts, including any arguments the local authorities may make, if any. I assure the House in the most categorical fashion that the views of the local authorities concerned shall be given the fullest and fairest consideration before an Order is actually made.
Now for the point as to how far we intend to go. I have assured the House that it is not part of the purpose of these Regulations to establish a national police force. It is not even part of the purpose of the Regulations to establish a police force coterminous with the Civil Defence regions. I have some sort of police organisation at the regional headquarters, but the suggestion that the wishes of the military authorities can be passed to them and then could be passed on to the chief constables does not commend itself to me. It is a roundabout way, and, moreover, I do not want to get the regions into that kind of business in that particular way.
I have no ambition to establish regional police forces. It is not necessary. What I want to do in the class of area with which we are concerned is to merge two smallish police forces into one, or a smallish police force into a bigger one. I do not propose to interfere with the larger, substantial police forces, and if I did, I would make special arrangements by way of announcement to the House, because

I should regard it as a move away from the spirit of the undertaking I have given. As I have said, my real purpose in this matter is to merge smallish forces with each other and smallish forces with bigger forces and that sort of thing, so that the complication of the small police forces should cease to exist and we can have a police force in the area which is of substantial character and sufficient.

Sir Alfred Beit: The right hon. Gentleman will not want to re-establish these small forces after the war when the advantages of the mergers have been seen.

Mr. Morrison: The answer to that is that this is being done by Defence Regulation, it automatically comes to an end at the end of the war; but it is perfectly competent for the Government and Parliament of the time, if they wish, to pass legislation continuing these measures and to provide for others. But I do not think I ought to prejudice that issue one way or the other. I again thank the House for the kindness with which this Debate has been conducted and for the tolerance with which Members have listened to me. I can assure them that I propose to administer these Regulations in a spirit of reasonableness, tolerance and public spirit. I hope the House will trust me with the Regulations and that in the circumstances Members may be disposed, in view of the undertakings I have given, to see their way to withdraw the Prayer which they have thought it their public duty to promote.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Having regard to the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House and to the concession which he proposes to give to members; of the police force, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Prayer.

Motion by leave withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]